Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th December, 2025
PHOENIX IMPEX .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Sarwal, Adv.
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil) GNCTD
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking refund claim of the sum of Rs.25,16,760/- filed by the Petitioner vide application bearing ARN No. AA0701240394778 dated 15th January, 2024.
3. The Petitioner had filed the said refund application for the unutilised Input Tax Credit (hereinafter “ITC”) on 15th January, 2024 for the month of November, 2023. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the same has not been processed and granted to the Petitioner despite the strict timelines under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’), including Section 54(7) of the CGST Act.
4. Mr. Siddhanth Sarwal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Suraj Mangar vs. Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax, (2025) 33 Centax 70 (Cal.) to argue that the said timelines are mandatory.
5. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that after filing of the present writ and the listing of the matter on 19th August, 2025, on 21st August, 2025, a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) had been issued along with the acknowledgement for the refund application in the following terms: “This has reference to your above mentioned application for refund on account of Export of Goods & Services without payment of Integrated Tax claiming refund amounting to Rs. 2516760/- for the tax period November,
2023. In order to examine the refund application, Taxpayer to provide following Clarification in respect of claim refund:
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Description Inadmissibl │ │ No. e Amount in │ │ Rs. │ │ 01. -As per the GSTR-2A of M/s GARD 25,16,760/- │ │ ENTERPRISES (07CKDPK5377H1ZX), the │ │ supplier has not adequately remitted │ │ payment of tax through cash and has utilized │ │ ITC over 90% for the payment of due tax │ │ liability during the period. Therefore your │ │ are hereby directed to provide relevant │ │ proof of movement of goods for the purchase │ │ made from GARG Enterprises, etc. │ │ 02. -Any other documents in support of your │ │ claim of refund. │ │ Total 25,16,760/- │ │ In view of the above mentioned facts, you are hereby │ │ directed to show cause, why your above mentioned refund │ │ Applicant vide ARN no. AA0701240394778 dated: │ │ 15.01.2024 should not be rejected on the ground mentioned │ │ above. │ │ You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to this notice │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
8. Notice was issued on 29th August, 2025 and the following directions were issued:
9. The refund order has been passed in this matter on 19th September, 2025, sanctioning a refund of Rs.25,16,760/-. However, insofar as interest component is concerned, the said order is absolutely silent.
10. In view of the fact that the refund has now been sanctioned, let the refund amount be credited to the Petitioner, along with the statutory applicable interest, in accordance with law.
11. The payment shall be made within a period of one month.
12. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE DECEMBER 4, 2025/pd/msh