GST · F2J-C-2751

M/s Rydberg v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Khardah Division & Ors.

VALIDATED FULL-TEXT JUDGMENT

Court: Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bench: Smita Das De
Case number: WPA No. 28043 of 2024
Decision date: 2026-09-01
Neutral citation: Not stated in retained copy
CNR: Not stated in retained copy
Disposition: Impugned Action Set Aside.

Open complete judgment PDF Public full-text source Official court portal

PDF provenance: The local PDF was generated by Indian Kanoon from the complete validated judgment text. It is searchable and text-matched, but is not an official court-issued PDF. The official court portal is listed separately; no judgment-specific official deep link is asserted.

Two-minute summary

Once the enforcement case was dropped, the foundation of the refund rejection disappeared. The rejection order was quashed and refund of ₹58,17,352.31 with statutory interest was directed within three weeks, subject to enhanced interest for further delay.

Material facts

At that relevant point of time, enforcement case was pending against petitioner, hence refund could not be processed. It is further submitted that the entire process for grant of refund along with interest requires to be expedited since the enforcement case initiated by the department has already been dropped against the petitioner. 1 to process the refund entitled to by the petitioner of the sums of Rs.35,23,375.31 and Rs.22,93,975.94 totaling to Rs.58,17,352.31 with interest at the present banking rate under Section 54 and 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within a period of three weeks from date, failing which there shall be an additional interest of 2% to be added per month till actual realization.

Issues

Whether a GST refund could remain rejected after the enforcement proceeding that supplied the sole basis for withholding it had been dropped.

Court reasoning

Therefore, foundation for rejection of refund does not survive. It is further submitted that the entire process for grant of refund along with interest requires to be expedited since the enforcement case initiated by the department has already been dropped against the petitioner. Having heard the parties and upon considering the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that, prima facie, the case has been made out warranting interference at this stage.

Ratio / controlling principle

Operative order

6. In view of the above, the rejection of refund order dated 5th October, 2022 is hereby set aside and quashed. Respondent no.1 shall process refund entitled to by the petitioner peremptorily within three weeks from the date of communication. 7. With the above observations and directions WPA 28043 of 2024 along with CAN 2 of 2026 stand disposed of.

Statutes and provisions

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 54

Scope limits

The decision is confined to the issues decided on the retained record; verify the complete judgment and subsequent history before reliance.

Completeness and review

Source text: Complete judgment text, validated against the public source
PDF status: Generated from validated complete text (not an official court PDF)
Text-to-PDF match: Passed
PDF pages: 2
Source words: 517
Later history: Not verified — check the official court record for later history before reliance (as of 20 Sep 2026)
PDF SHA-256: d3cd0fe2cf2bb567ccfc5e31b0f96813301503cdf3ec48daf955cf0b91e208b3

Read the complete searchable judgment text

M/S. Rydberg vs Assistant Commissioner on 1 September, 2026

01.09.26

12 Ct. No.10

Sws.M

WPA 28043 of 2024

with

CAN 2 of 2026

M/s. Rydberg

vs.

Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Khardah

Division&Ors.

Mr. Indranil Banerjee

Mr. Subrata Mukherjee

...for the petitioner

Mr. SoumenBhattacharjee

Ms. Shradhya Ghosh

...for the State

Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury

Mr. SujitMitra

...for the Union of India

Mr. Kaushik Dey

Mr. KaustavKantiMaity

...for the CGST Authority

1. Pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2026, the

State-respondents have already obtained

instructions from the concerned department and filed a report, which is taken on record.

2. From the report, it appears that the entire enforcement case is being closed from Enforcement

module without forwarding the case to assessment and adjudication module and, accordingly, the

enforcement case has been closed from GST portal after uploading the Final Report in GST Portal.

Therefore, foundation for rejection of refund does not survive.

3. It is further submitted that the refund application has been rejected on 05.10.2022 due to the

pendency of the proceedings initiated by the GST authorities. At that relevant point of time,

enforcement case was pending against petitioner, hence refund could not be processed. Now, after

closure, department has no objection for reconsideration as per law.

4. It is further submitted that the entire process for grant of refund along with interest requires to be

expedited since the enforcement case initiated by the department has already been dropped against

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/31810111/ 1

M/S. Rydberg vs Assistant Commissioner on 1 September, 2026

the petitioner.

5. Having heard the parties and upon considering the materials on record, this Court is of the

opinion that, prima facie, the case has been made out warranting interference at this stage. This

Court has already taken the judicial notice of all the documents including the report of the GST

department. This court directs the respondent No. 1 to process the refund entitled to by the

petitioner of the sums of Rs.35,23,375.31 and Rs.22,93,975.94 totaling to Rs.58,17,352.31 with

interest at the present banking rate under Section 54 and 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax

Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within a period of three weeks from date,

failing which there shall be an additional interest of 2% to be added per month till actual realization.

6. In view of the above, the rejection of refund order dated 5th October, 2022 is hereby set aside and

quashed. Respondent no.1 shall process refund entitled to by the petitioner peremptorily within

three weeks from the date of communication.

7. With the above observations and directions WPA 28043 of 2024 along with CAN 2 of 2026 stand

disposed of.

8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as

possible.

(Smita Das De, J.)

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/31810111/ 2

Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the official court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history before reliance.