M/S G.S INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST, DELHI (WEST)

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12); GST statutory provision - Section 107(2)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The petitioner is stated to have applied for refund for the period April 2018 to March 2019 in terms of two applications dated 04 July 2019 and 09 July 2019. Two deficiency memos came to be issued by the respondents w hile considering the aforesaid applications . It is the case of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid deficiency memos were duly attended to and all material duly supplied. Since the refund was not released even thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have approached the respondents by way of representations dated 13 February 2020 and 27 February 2020. Operative disposition: The appeal filed by the Dy./Assistant Commissioner, CGST Rajouri Garden Division, CGST Delhi West, 4 th Floor, EIL Annexe Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against Order -In- Original No. CGST/DW/Rajouri/R -123/Refund/ G.S.Industries/ 05/2022/86 dated 09.06.2023 is…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

J U D G M E N T 1. The order sh eet would reflect that despite time having been granted on 19 September 2024 and 16 October 2024 , the respondents have failed to file a reply . Although Mr. Singla, learned counsel representing them has vehemently requested for further time being granted to file an additional affidavit, we find no justification to defer disposal of this writ petition, in light of the following facts which obtain. YASHWANT VARMA, J. (Oral) 2. The petitioner impugns an Order-in-Appeal dated 24 May 2024 passed by the appellate authority allowing an appeal preferred by the Department and consequently setting aside an order dated 09 June

2023 and which had sanctioned a refund to the writ petitioner. 3. For the purposes of disposal of the present writ petition, we take note of the following salient facts. 4. The petitioner is stated to have applied for refund for the period April 2018 to March 2019 in terms of two applications dated 04 July 2019 and 09 July 2019. Two deficiency memos came to be issued by the respondents w hile considering the aforesaid applications . It is the case of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid deficiency memos were duly attended to and all material duly supplied. Since the refund was not released even thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have approached the respondents by way of representations dated 13 February 2020 and 27 February 2020. 5. In light of the continued inaction of the respondents, the petitioner had approached this Court in G.S. Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax & Ors.

appeals came to be allowed on 03 January 2022. 7. It becomes pertinent to note that the appellate authority, while allowing the appeal, had held as follows:- “Discussion and findings: I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and submissions and additional submissions and oral arguments made by the Appellant during the course of personal hearing. I find that Appellants refund claims, on account of ITC accumulated due to inverted duty structure, have been rejected mainly on the grounds that:-

B The appellant was alleged to have claimed excessive consumption of brass in its production process in manufacturing of its product. Now I take up the issues point wise to decide the mattera) The appellant has placed on record

i) electricity bill issued by BSES in name of Harjinder Singh, Proprietor having the same address mentioned in GSTIN ii) Copy of VAT a ssessment order dated 02.01.2012 & 06.11.2019 bearing the same address iii) Copies of three refund orders bearing nos.662027, 662023 & 662028 issued by VAT department , Delhi iv) Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2019- 20 alongwith the copy of balance sheet.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

125/44/2019-GST. 12.2 Therefore, the refund sanct ioned without receipt of Annexure-B is contrary to the provision contained in rule 90(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 which states that in deficiency of any requisite documents, the proper officer shall communicate the deficiencies to the applicant in Form GST RFD-03 through common portal electronically requiring him to file a fresh refund application after rectification of such deficiencies. In the instant case, the proper officer did not issue any deficiency memo (Form GST RFD -03) and refund order was sanctioned. 13. The refund sanctioning authority failed to obtain and examine the Annexure-B while passing the refund order. The refund sanctioning authority, by not raising the above - mentioned requirement has erred in sanctioning the said refund order in the absence of the said Annexure-B.

14. Therefore, it appears that RFD -06 issued vide Order No. CGST/ DW/ Rajouri/ R -123/ Refund/ G.S.Industries/05/2022/86 dated 09.06.2023 passed by the adjudicating authority does not appear to be legal and proper and deserves to be set aside.”

submit Annexure -B. In this context, I find that the Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 was effective from 26.09.2019 and after the said date, all refund applications filed on common portal are bound by the said Circular. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that they were not required to submit Annexure -B hold no ground as they filed the said refund application on common portal on 04.02.2022 i.e. after issuance of the said Circular. As such, I find force in the department’s appeal alleging that the adjudicating authority failed to ask for Annexure -B from the respondent and sanctioned the refund without examining the same. Hence, I hold that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is neither legal nor maintainable in law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside and the departmental appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

15. We find ourselves unable to sustain the order dated 24 May 2024 for reasons which follow . Undisputedly, we had in terms of our order passed on 2 8 March 2023 in the earlier round of litigation in unequivocal terms held that since concededly the respondents had failed to assail the Order -in- Appeal dated 03 January 2022, the claim for refund could not have been denied. That is the position which remains unchanged even till date. 16. That leaves us only to consider whether it would have been permissible at all for the Commissioner to question the validity of the order dated 09 June 2023 in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 107(2) of th e Act . Undisputedly the order of 0 9 June 2023 had come to be framed in order to give effect to the Order-inW.P.(C) 13149/2024 Page 9 of 9

Operative decision and relief

which was preferred by the writ petitioner and in terms of the aforenoted order of the appellate authority dated 12 February 2024. 11. We are, however, and in the present proceedings not concerned with the validity of that order, since the same forms subject matter of a separate writ petition. 12. The respondents, however, appear to have in the meanwhile instituted an independent appeal seeking to question t he order dated 09 June 2023 and which has now come to be allowed in terms of the order impugned dated 24 May 2024. 13. While deciding that appeal, the appellate authority has essentially taken into consideration an order dated 11 December 2023 passed by the Commissioner and which has chosen to review the order sanctioning refund in favou r of the writ petitioner.

14. Basis the above, t he appeal of the Department came to be allowed with the appellate authority holding as under:- “7. I find that the respondent stated that as their refund claim pertain to the period of 2017- 18 & 2018- 19, they were not required to

8. The appeal filed by the Dy./Assistant Commissioner, CGST Rajouri Garden Division, CGST Delhi West, 4 th Floor, EIL Annexe Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against Order -InOriginal No. CGST/DW/Rajouri/R -123/Refund/ G.S.Industries/ 05/2022/86 dated 09.06.2023 is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 09.06.2023 is set aside for the reasons as discussed supra. The instant appeal is disposed of in terms of Section 107(12) of CGST Act, 2017.”

Appeal dated 03 January 2022. 17. The Commissioner , while seeking to review an order passed under the Act and in purported exercise of powers vested by Section 107(2), cannot possibly sit over and above an order passed by the appellate authority. Regard must be had to the fact that the power enshrined in Section 107(2) is concerned with the examination of the record of proceedings which may have been und ertaken by an adjudicating authority. It clearly does not contemplate the Commissioner seeking to even attempt to review an order passed by the appellate authority. The power so wielded by the Commissioner with reference to Section 107(2) is rendered furth er unsustainable when viewed in light of the observations which appear in our earlier order of 28 March 2024. We are thus of the firm opinion that the impugned order cannot possibly sustain. 18. We, consequently, allow the instant writ petition and quash the order of 24 May 2024 . The grievance of the petitioner with respect to denial of interest as per the order of 0 9 June 2023 and which was affirmed in appeal and presently forms subject matter of G.S. Industries v. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi West & Anr. & Ors, as noted above, is left open to be examined in those proceedings.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S G.S INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST, DELHI (WEST) concerns issue and context: the petitioner is stated to have applied for refund for the period april 2018 to march 2019 in terms of two applications dated 04 july 2019 and 09 july 2019. two deficiency memos came to be issued by the respondents w hile considering the aforesaid applications . it is the case of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid deficiency memos were duly attended to and all material duly supplied. since the refund was not released even thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have approached the respondents by way of representations dated 13 february 2020 and 27 february 2020. operative disposition: the appeal filed by the dy./assistant commissioner, cgst rajouri garden division, cgst delhi west, 4 th floor, eil annexe building, bhikaji cama place, new delhi 110066 against order -in- original no. cgst/dw/rajouri/r -123/refund/ g.s.industries/ 05/2022/86 dated 09.06.2023 is… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 13149/2024.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The petitioner is stated to have applied for refund for the period April 2018 to March 2019 in terms of two applications dated 04 July 2019 and 09 July 2019. Two deficiency memos came to be issued by the respondents w hile considering the aforesaid applications . It is the case of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid deficiency memos were duly attended to and all material duly supplied. Since the refund was not released even thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have approached the respondents by way of representations dated 13 February 2020 and 27 February 2020. Operative disposition: The appeal filed by the Dy./Assistant Commissioner, CGST Rajouri Garden Division, CGST Delhi West, 4 th Floor, EIL Annexe Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against Order -In- Original No. CGST/DW/Rajouri/R -123/Refund/ G.S.Industries/ 05/2022/86 dated 09.06.2023 is… Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12); GST statutory provision - Section 107(2)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12); GST statutory provision - Section 107(2) and the decision date 2024-12-16; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S G.S INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST, DELHI (WEST), the proceeding is W.P.(C) 13149/2024, and the decision is dated 2024-12-16. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12); GST statutory provision - Section 107(2). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is Review / appeal / SLP and later treatment: check pending. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107(12) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Globe Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through Director Vipin Mittal v. Commissioner of DGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Padam Kishore and Company through Proprietor Naveen Sachdeva v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• T V Sundram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST (State) and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Refunds

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Official primary text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published