SHALENDER KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER DELHI WEST CGST COMMISSIONERATE & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 5; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(11); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12); GST statutory provision - Section 112(3)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order bearing Order No. 04/2024-25 dated 14th January, 2025 and the Review Order bearing No. 12/2023-24 dated 21st July, 2024, passed by the Commissioner, Delhi West, CGST Commissionerate- Respondent No. 1 under the Central Goods And Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the ‘CGST Act, 2017’). 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 APRIL 3, 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) 3824/2025 Page 1 of 8 $~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 3rd April, 2025 + W.P.(C) 3824/2025 SHALENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidhant Sarwal, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER DELHI WEST CGST COMMISSIONERATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harsh Singhal & Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advs. 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 by the Petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order bearing Order No. 04/2024-25 dated 14th January, 2025 and the Review Order bearing No. 12/2023-24 dated 21st July, 2024, passed by the Commissioner, Delhi West, CGST Commissionerate- Respondent No. 1 under the Central Goods And Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the ‘CGST Act, 2017’). 3. The Petitioner in the present case is engaged in the wholesale trade and export of FMCGs and is registered with the GST Department bearing GSTIN07ANZPK3951A1ZT. 4. The Petitioner was granted refund by the Appellate Authority for the period December, 2022 vide Order in Appeal dated 17th January, 2024,

W.P.(C) 3824/2025 Page 2 of 8 bearing No. 246/ADC/Central Tax/Appeal-II/Delhi/2023-24 wherein it was held that the claim of the Petitioner was genuine and legitimate and the Petitioner was eligible for refund as the same satisfied the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the said refund was not processed in favour of the Petitioner. 5. The background of the case is that a show cause was issued upon the Petitioner dated 23rd June, 2023 as to why the refund claim filed by him should not be rejected on the ground that the L1 and L2 suppliers’ licences as mentioned in the show cause were cancelled.

This order was appealed against by the Petitioner. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority held in favour of the Petitioner and allowed the refund in the following terms: “8. Therefore, I hold that the adjudicating authority has denied rightful refund of the tax paid on export of goods to the appellant on the grounds which are actually against the available statute and also contrary to the judgments of Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Supreme

W.P.(C) 3824/2025 Page 3 of 8 Court as discussed supra. A s such, the adjudicating authority has erred in rejecting the appellant's refund claim amounting to Rs. 1815500/-. The impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is neither legal nor maintainable in law as such the same is liable to be set aside and the appellant’s appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER 9. The appeal filed by M/s Shahji Enterprises (Legal Name: Shalender Kumar), 11th Floor, Office No. 1110, Pearl Best Height 2, Pitampura Road, New Delhi 110034 against Order-in-Original No. ZL0709230332191 dated 26.09.2023 is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 26.09.2023 is set aside as discussed supra. The appeal is disposed of in terms of Section 107(12) of CGST Act, 2017.” 7. The Department decided to file a review of the said Appellate Authority’s order and also gave an opinion under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act, 2017, that processing the refund now would be contrary to the interest of the revenue. The operative portion of the review order dated 21 st July, 2024 and the order dated 14th January, 2025 are set out below: “Operative portion of the Review Order dated 21st July,

7. Accordingly, in exercise of the power vested upon me under Section 112(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 111(1) of the CGST Rules 2017, I hereby authorize the Assistant Commissioner, CGST DivisionPitampura, Delhi West Commissionerate and direct him to file an appeal against the Order in Appeal No. 246/ADC/Central Tax/Appeal-11/Delhi/2023-24 dated 17.01.2024 in respect of M/s Shahji Enterprises (Legal Name: Shalender Kumar), GSTIN:07ANZPK3951A1ZT before the GST Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (Competent Appellate Tribunal, as may be constituted), with prayer that:

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

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 challenge the Order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022, and

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

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

Operative decision and relief

W.P.(C) 3824/2025 Page 7 of 8 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 Appellate Authority. 16. It is, however, made clear that if in law the Department can still challenge the said Appellate Authority’s order, the processing of refund in

W.P.(C) 3824/2025 Page 8 of 8 terms of the today’s order of this Court shall be subject to the decision in any appeal. The refund shall be processed along with interest in terms of Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017, within a period of two months. 17. In the opinion of this Court, considering the fact that refund amounts are payable with interest for the delayed period for paying the refund, it would in fact be contrary to the interest of the Department itself to hold back the refund inasmuch as if any appeal is filed and the order of the Appellate Authority is reversed, then the same would also bind the Petitioner. 18. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE APRIL 3, 2025 Rahul/ss

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with SHALENDER KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER DELHI WEST CGST COMMISSIONERATE & ORS. concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226/227 of the constitution of india challenging the order bearing order no. 04/2024-25 dated 14th january, 2025 and the review order bearing no. 12/2023-24 dated 21st july, 2024, passed by the commissioner, delhi west, cgst commissionerate- respondent no. 1 under the central goods and service tax act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the ‘cgst act, 2017’). 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 april 3, 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) 3824/2025.

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 by the Petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order bearing Order No. 04/2024-25 dated 14th January, 2025 and the Review Order bearing No. 12/2023-24 dated 21st July, 2024, passed by the Commissioner, Delhi West, CGST Commissionerate- Respondent No. 1 under the Central Goods And Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the ‘CGST Act, 2017’). 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 APRIL 3, 2025 Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 5; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(11); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12); GST statutory provision - Section 112(3)—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 5; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(11); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12); GST statutory provision - Section 112(3) and the decision date 2025-04-03; 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 SHALENDER KUMAR v. COMMISSIONER DELHI WEST CGST COMMISSIONERATE & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 3824/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-04-03. 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 5; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(11); GST statutory provision - Section 56; GST statutory provision - Section 107(12); GST statutory provision - Section 112(3). 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_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 5 — 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 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.
• GST statutory provision - Section 112(3) — 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_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY