M/ S JVG TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER CGST, DELHI WEST AND ANR

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(11); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-M/s JVG Technology Private Limited under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 2 Department (hereinafter, ‘ Department’) to sanction the refund claim of the Petitioner amounting Rs. 5,00,98,287/- along with applicable interest in terms of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’). Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed
• 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

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-M/s JVG Technology Private Limited under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 2 Department (hereinafter, ‘ Department’) to sanction the refund claim of the Petitioner amounting Rs. 5,00,98,287/- along with applicable interest in terms of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’). 3. The case of the Petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of export of mobile phones. For the said purpose, the Petitioner is registered with the GST Department vide registration no. 07AAFCJ6874R1ZL. The Petitioner procures input services from various dealers in respect of domestic sales and discharges GST liability at 18%. It is stated that usually, the Petitioner has an excess balance and unutilized Input Tax Credit (hereinafter ‘ITC’) exists in favour of the Petitioner. The present petition relates to refund of the unutilized

ITC as per the provisions of clause (i) to the proviso of Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act. 4. It is further stated that the Petitioner filed a refund claim on 29 th October, 2022 in form GST RFD -01 for seeking refund of Rs.2,03,00,339/ - for the month of September, 2022. It also filed another refund application dated 26th November 2022 in the same form for seeking refund of Rs.2,97,97,948/- for the month of October, 2022. Thereafter two Show Cause Notices were issued on 29th May, 2023 (hereinafter, the ‘Show Cause Notice’) and the Petitioner filed an online reply to the same. However, during the pendency of the Show Cause Notices, both the refund claims were rejected vide order dated 26 th June, 2023 passed by the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax GST West, Rohini, Delhi. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Appellate authority. The Appellate authority allowed the refund claim on 11 th December, 2023. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:- “ ….8. The appeal filed by M/s JVG Technology Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, 22, Vaishali Enclave, New Delhi – 110034 against Order -inOriginalIn-Original Nos. ZH0706230413076 & ZK0706230413132 both dated 30.06.2023 are hereby allowed. The impugned orders both dated 30.06.2023 are set aside as discussed supra The appeals ar e disposed of in terms of Section 107(12) of CGST Act, 2017.”

5. In the meantime, after the Appellate authority’s order, it is stated that the Petitioner repeatedly made representations. However, the refund has not been granted. Hence, the present petition. 6. The case of the Department is that by exercising powers under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act, 2017, the order under appeal has been reversed in

the following terms: “ ORDER I withhold the further processing and sanction of refund filed by the taxpayer M/s. JVG Technology Private Limited, 2nd Floor, 22 Vaishali Enclave, Near Kohat Metro Station, New Delhi-110034 vide ARN No. AA07122308125C dated 29.12.2023 filed consequent to passing of Orders -in-Appeal No. 195 -196/ADC/ Central Tax/ Appeal -11/Delhi/2023-24 dated 11.12.2023 till final decision on appeals filed against said orders dated 11.12.2023 or the finality of the appeal proceedings against said orders, whichever is later, as grant of refund at this stage will adversely affect the revenue in said appeal on account of the malfeasance or fraud committed as discussed supra. ”

7. The position under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been recently considered by this Court in Shalender Kumar v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Ors. in W.P.(C) 3824/2025 dated 3rd April, 2025 wherein the Court observed as under: “ … 12. Section 54(11) of the CGST Act, 2017, reads as under: “Section 54 - xxx Section 54(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.” 13. A perusal of Section 54(11) of the Act would show that the refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the following two conditions – (i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a

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 App ellate Authority also found that the Adjudicating Authority had not provided any basis for observing that the product manufactured by the petitioner required very less or no brass at all. 9. Since the petitioner succeeded in its appeal, the petitioner is entitled to the refund as claimed. However, notwithstanding the same, the refund has not been disbursed. 10. Ms. Narain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the respondent has decided to

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

challenge the Order -in-appeal dated 03.01.2022, and the Commissioner has passed an order dated 19.05.2022, setting out the grounds on which the appeal is required to be preferred against the Order - in-appeal. 11. The principal question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the benefit of Order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022 can be denied to the petitioner and the refund amount be withheld solely on the ground that the respondent has decided to file an appeal against the said order. 12. Concededly, the respondent has not filed any appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022, and there is no order of any Court or Tribunal staying the said order. Indisputably, the order -in-appeal dated 03.01.2022 cannot be ignored by the respondents solely because according to the revenue, the said order is erroneous and is required to be set aside.

13. Learned counsel for the parties also pointed out that the said issue is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Mr. Brij Mohan Mangla Vs. Union of India & Ors.: W.P.(C) 14234/2022 dated 23.02.2023. 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.” 15.

In view of this position, the refund in favour of the Petitioner would be liable to be allowed in terms of the order passed by the

8. In view of the above settled legal position, under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act, that the opinion of the Department cannot be relied upon on a stand-alone basis, without any challenge to the order by the Appellate authority, it is directed that the refu nd amount be released in favour of the Petitioner along with the statutory interest. The Petitioner is free to file an application if the refund amount is not credited by 10th July 2025. 9. If, however, any appeal is filed challenging the Appellate authority's order by the Department, then the processing of refund in terms of this order, shall be subject to the decision in the appeal. 10. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/ S JVG TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER CGST, DELHI WEST AND ANR concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-m/s jvg technology private limited under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondent no. 2 department (hereinafter, ‘ department’) to sanction the refund claim of the petitioner amounting rs. 5,00,98,287/- along with applicable interest in terms of section 56 of the central goods and service tax act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘cgst act’). operative disposition: the petition is disposed of in these terms. pending application(s), if any, are also disposed 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) 5757/2025.

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 present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-M/s JVG Technology Private Limited under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 2 Department (hereinafter, ‘ Department’) to sanction the refund claim of the Petitioner amounting Rs. 5,00,98,287/- along with applicable interest in terms of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’). Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(11); GST statutory provision - Section 56; 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 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(11); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12) and the decision date 2025-05-23; 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 JVG TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER CGST, DELHI WEST AND ANR, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 5757/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-05-23. 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 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(11); GST statutory provision - Section 56; 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 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 54 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 54(11) — 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 107(12) — 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