M S G S INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST DELHI WEST

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 49; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(1); GST statutory provision - Section 54(7); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 57; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 12th February, 2024 by which part interest on the refund claim of the Petitioner was rejected. Operative disposition: Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 20, 2025
• 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

W.P.(C) 7485/2024 Page 1 of 13 $~115 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 7485/2024 & CM APPL. 31186/2024 M S G S INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Malhotra, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST DELHI WEST .....Respondent Through: Mr Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Anand Pandey & Mr. Anugya Gupta, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 31186/2024 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 7485/2024 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 12th February, 2024 by which part interest on the refund claim of the Petitioner was rejected. 4. The brief background is that the Petitioner had filed two refund

W.P.(C) 7485/2024 Page 2 of 13 applications on 4th July, 2019 and 9th July, 2019 and had claimed a refund of a sum of Rs.23,10,333/- and Rs.14,46,417/- respectively. The deficiency memos were issued to the Petitioner in FORM GST RFD-03 on 29 th November, 2019 to which the Petitioner filed a reply on 27 th January, 2020. Acknowledgements under FORM GST RFD-02 were generated on 11 th February, 2020. However, despite the said acknowledgements, the refund was not granted with interest within 60 days in terms of Section 54(7) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter ‘ CGST Act ). After repeated follow-ups, since there was no response, a writ petition being W.P.(C) 9321/2020 titled G.S.

Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax & Ors was filed by the Petitioner. The Court, on 24th November, 2020, upon hearing the parties, passed the following order: “W.P. (C) 9321/2020 The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction to the Respondents to release the GST refund due to the Petitioner amounting to Rs.37,56,750/- for the period of September, 2017 to March, 2018 and April, 2018 to March, 2019 with interest thereon in terms of 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.

Issue notice. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He states that the petitioner’s claim shall be processed and decision shall be taken within three weeks. The statement made by Mr. Harpreet Singh is accepted by this Court and the respondents are held bound by the same.

W.P.(C) 7485/2024 Page 3 of 13 In view thereof, the present writ petition stands disposed of. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.” 5. Pursuant to the above order, the refund applications were to be processed within three weeks. The refund application was, however, rejected on 14 th December, 2020. The matter was then carried in appeal by the Petitioner to the Appellate Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upon considering the submissions, on 3rd January, 2022 passed the following order: “In view of above discussions, analysis and statutory provisions cited above, the two appeals filed by the appellant hold merit and deserve to be allowed.

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

Industries having GSTIN: - 07AMOPS2765G1ZK as Interest in compliance of Hon'ble High Court's order dated 28.03.2023” 8. As can be seen from the above order, only an amount of Rs.45,669/- has been awarded as interest. The basis of the calculation of interest was the order dated 9th June, 2023. In effect, therefore, interest for a period of 74 days

This clearly indicates that if a person’s claim for refund is a subject matter of further proceedings, which finally culminate in orders upholding the applicant’s entitlement, and yet the payment is not made within a period of sixty days from an application filed pursuant to such orders, the person is required to be compensated at a higher rate of interest, of 9% per annum. This higher rate of interest would run from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days of the filing of such an application – that is, the application filed pursuant to the orders of the appellate fora and not the first application. 33. It is clear from a plain reading of Section 56 of the CGST Act that whereas the main provision of Section 56 of the

Operative decision and relief

No order as to interest. The two impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed and disposed off in terms of Section 107(12) of CGST Act, 2017.” 6. As can be seen from the above order, the refund was allowed. However, interest was not awarded. Pursuant to the above order, the Petitioner had filed a second set of refund applications under FORM GST RFD-01 on 4th February, 2022. Since the said order dated 3 rd January, 2022 was also not implemented by the Department, the Petitioner filed a second writ petition being W.P.(C) 14719/2022 titled G.S. Industries v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr. & Ors.in which, the Court, vide order dated 28th March, 2023, directed that the Petitioner’s claim for refund, including interest, would be processed forthwith.

W.P.(C) 7485/2024 Page 4 of 13 “14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s claim for refund including interest. 15. It is, however, clarified that this would not preclude the respondents from availing any remedy against the Order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority. Further, in the event, the respondents prevail in their challenge to order-inappeal dated 03.01.2022, the respondents would also be entitled to take consequential action for recovery of any amount that has been disbursed, albeit in accordance with the law.” 7. Finally, on 9 th June, 2023, the refund was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Delhi West, but without granting complete interest.

W.P.(C) 7485/2024 Page 13 of 13 days from the date of second refund application dated 4th February, 2022). However it is again made clear that the interest for the period of 74 days shall be deducted from this period. The interest for the subsequent period between 5th April, 2022 to 9th June, 2023 shall be 9% per annum. 19. The interest already paid shall be deducted from the total amount. 20. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 20, 2025 Rahul/Ar.

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 present petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226 of the constitution of india challenging the impugned order-in-appeal dated 12th february, 2024 by which part interest on the refund claim of the petitioner was rejected. operative disposition: petition is disposed of in these terms. all pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge rajneesh kumar gupta judge may 20, 2025 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) 7485/2024.

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 “Disposed” 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 present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 12th February, 2024 by which part interest on the refund claim of the Petitioner was rejected. Operative disposition: Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 20, 2025 Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 49; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(1); GST statutory provision - Section 54(7); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 57; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12)—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 39; GST statutory provision - Section 49; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(1); GST statutory provision - Section 54(7); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 57; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12) and the decision date 2025-05-20; 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) 7485/2024, and the decision is dated 2025-05-20. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA. 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 39; GST statutory provision - Section 49; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(1); GST statutory provision - Section 54(7); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 57; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12). 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 Disposed. 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 39 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 49 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 54 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 54(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 54(7) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 56 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 57 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107(12) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

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