M/S HCC VCCL JOINT VENTURE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 15; GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 17; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 27; GST statutory provision - Section 33; GST statutory provision - Section 37; GST statutory provision - Section 38; GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 41; GST statutory provision - Section 49

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: As per the facts which emerge from the record, presently there does not appear to be any quantified demand or liability that stands created against th e writ petitioner. As we peruse the impugned order, we find that the principal allegation against the petitioner is of an incorrect utilization of ITC alone. Operative disposition: We, accordingly, allow the ins tant writ petition and quash the order dated 05 July
• 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

YASHWANT VARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petitioner assails the validity of the order dated 05 July 2023 made in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 108 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 1 and which has principally placed in abeyance an order of refund dated 09 December 2022. That order had sanctioned the refund of a sum of INR 5,50,00,000/- in favour of the writ petitioner. 2. While considering the petition on 21 October 2024 we had , upon hearing learned counsel s for respectiv e sides , passed the following order

“1. Having heard learned counsels for respective sides at some length, we take note of the following facts which emerge. 2. The petitioner is principally aggrieved by the order dated 05 July 2023 and which has essenti ally placed in abeyance the Refund Sanction Order dated 09 December 2022. The Refund Sanction Order undisputedly pertained to the amounts standing to the credit of the Electronic Cash Ledger of the writ petitioner. 3. Undoubtedly, the said ledger would em body amounts which have been deducted under Section 51 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by a department or establishment of the government, a local authority, or other governmental agencies.

5. As per the facts which emerge from the record, presently there does not appear to be any quantified demand or liability that stands created against th e writ petitioner. As we peruse the impugned order, we find that the principal allegation against the petitioner is of an incorrect utilization of ITC alone. 6. We further take note of the provisions made in Section 54 and which while addressing various c ontingencies in which a refund of unutilized ITC may be stalled or paused, incorporates no corresponding prohibitions with respect to amounts standing to the credit of the Electronic Cash Ledger. 7. In order to enable Mr. Singla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents to address submissions in the aforesaid light, let the matter be called again on 05.11.2024.”

7. The fact that the CGST Act places sums standing to the c redit of those ledgers on an equal pedestal, according to Mr. Singla, is further fortified from a reading o f Section 49(6) and which prescribes that the balance in both those ledgers may be refunded in accordance with the provisions of Section 54. 8. For the purposes of evaluating the submission s which were addressed, we deem it apposite to extract Sections 49, 51 and 54 hereunder: “49. Payment of tax, interest, penalty and other amounts .—(1) Every deposit made towards tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount by a person by internet banking or by using credit or debit cards or National Electronic Fund Transfer or Real Time Gross Settlement or by such other mode and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, shall be credited to th e electronic cash ledger of such person to be maintained in such manner as may be prescribed.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub -section, the expression “specified date” shall mean the last date for filing an appe al under this Act. (11) Where an order giving rise to a refund is the subject matter of an appeal or further proceedings or where any other proceedings under this Act is pending and the Commissioner is of the opinion that grant of such refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue in the said appeal or other proceedings on account of malfeasance or fraud committed, he may, after giving the taxable person an opportunity of being heard, withhold the refund till such time as he may determine. (12) Where a r efund is withheld under sub -section (11), the taxable person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 56, be entitled to interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent. as may be

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

3. The submission which was essentially addressed before us on that date was that no restraint on withdrawal of sums standing to the credit of the Electronic Cash Ledger could be placed under the provisions of the CGST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner had on that occasion contended that the restrictions with respect to utilization of funds that may stand to the credit of a ledger as contemplated under

which we should recognise to exist and governing sums which stand in balance in the Electronic Cash and Electronic Credit Ledgers. 14. However, and notwithstanding the above, we find merit and force in the seco nd submission which was addressed in challenge to the impugned order and which proceed ed on the following lines. Taking us through the order impugned, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, laid emphasis on a complete absence of any finding which may have been indicative of the revisional authority having come to even a prima facie conclusion that the order dated 09 December 2022 was either illegal, improper or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

Revenue / respondent submissions

the CGST Act would be confined to the Electronic Credit Ledger alone. It was in the aforesaid context that we had granted time to Mr. Singla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, to address further submissions. 4. For completeness, we also bear in consideration that while the original order of stay under Section 108 was ordained to operate for a period of six months, the same came to be amended by way of a Corrigendum issued thereafter. That Corrigendum dated 04 December 2023 reads thus: - “Attention is invited to Revision/Stay order dated 05.07.2023 under Section 108 of CGST Act 2017 for Refund applied under ARN AA0710220365371 dated 14.10.2022 issued from CGST/DW/HQ/Review/RFD-06/HCC-VCCL/379/2022/Pt-1/19849 by the undersigned in respe ct of M/s HCC -VCCL Joint Venture (GSTIN - 07AACAH8776P12T), DC -06, PROJECT ROAD NO 235 KESHOPUR, KESHOPURI, MAJOR BHUPINDER SINGH NAGAR KRISHNA PARK, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, West Delhi, Delhi, 110018.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

11. Undisputedly, there is no outstanding demand against the petitioner and which may have perhaps legitimately constituted one of the possible reasons to withhold the refund. While it is true that Section 54 while making specific provisions with respect to refund of unutilized ITC in terms of sub-sections (5) and (8) thereof, stops short of incorporating simila r restrictions on utilization of the balance standing in the Electronic Cash Ledger in terms which may be described as explicit, the position, in our considered opinion, would be no different. 12. This we note since Section 108 empowers the revisional authority to place in abeyance “any order” made under the CGST Act and which in its opinion could be said to be illegal, improper or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

13. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to sustain the contention of the petitioner who had sought to canvass a position of distinction

16. In order to evaluate the correctness of that submission we deem it apposite to extract the following paragraphs from the order impugned: “3. After examining the electronic cash ledger of the tax payer, it appeared to the adjudicating authority that TDS has been credited in the cash ledger as detailed in para 2 above and the same has been debited in the electronic cash ledger while claiming the refund claim. Therefore the adjudicating authority sanctioned an amount of Rs5,50,00,000/- (CGST- 2,75,00,000/- & SGST 2,75,00,000) as electronic cash refund the tax payer i.e. M/s HCC -VCCL Joint Venture under rule 92 of CGST Rules, 2017 read with section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

India. 19. Admittedly, the allegation of wrongful availment of ITC is based on intelligence inputs received subsequent to th e passing of the order dated 09 December 2022. The allegation of improper utilization of ITC is one which is clearly distinct and unconnected with the order sanctioning refund. While that allegation , when tested and examined , may ultimately lead to the cre ation of prospective liabilities , it has no correlation with the question of whether the order sanctioning refund was rendered invalid or was liable to be corrected under Section 108. 20. Absent any finding or conclusion having been rendered by the Commissioner in this respect, and which may have tended to indicate that the opinion expressed in the order dated 09 December 2022 was rendered unsustainable, illegal or invalid, we find ourselves unable to sustain the order impugned. 21. We, accordingly, allow the ins tant writ petition and quash the order dated 05 July 2023. 22. We, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case accord liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh and in accordance with law. This order, however, shall thus be without prejudice to the r ights and contentions of respective parties which would be open to be canvassed in case any further proceedings as permissible in law are initiated by the respondents.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S HCC VCCL JOINT VENTURE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. concerns issue and context: as per the facts which emerge from the record, presently there does not appear to be any quantified demand or liability that stands created against th e writ petitioner. as we peruse the impugned order, we find that the principal allegation against the petitioner is of an incorrect utilization of itc alone. operative disposition: we, accordingly, allow the ins tant writ petition and quash the order dated 05 july 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) 10940/2023.

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: As per the facts which emerge from the record, presently there does not appear to be any quantified demand or liability that stands created against th e writ petitioner. As we peruse the impugned order, we find that the principal allegation against the petitioner is of an incorrect utilization of ITC alone. Operative disposition: We, accordingly, allow the ins tant writ petition and quash the order dated 05 July Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 15; GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 17; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 27; GST statutory provision - Section 33; GST statutory provision - Section 37; GST statutory provision - Section 38; GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 41; GST statutory provision - Section 49—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 15; GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 17; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 27; GST statutory provision - Section 33; GST statutory provision - Section 37; GST statutory provision - Section 38; GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 41; GST statutory provision - Section 49 and the decision date 2024-11-05; 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 HCC VCCL JOINT VENTURE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 10940/2023, and the decision is dated 2024-11-05. 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 RAVINDER DUDEJA 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 15; GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 17; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 27; GST statutory provision - Section 33; GST statutory provision - Section 37; GST statutory provision - Section 38; GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 41; GST statutory provision - Section 49. 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_SUBSEQUENT_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 15 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 16 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 16(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 17 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 25 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 27 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 33 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 37 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 38 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 39 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 41 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 49 — 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_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY