M/S MOHAN FOOTCARE PVT. LTD v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CGST

Delhi High Court · 18 Sep 2025 · 2025:DHC:8377-DB
Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain
W.P.(C) 6804/2024
2025:DHC:8377-DB
tax petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the GST department to re-credit Input Tax Credit adjusted against erroneous refunds despite technical portal limitations, allowing the writ petition.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 6804/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th September, 2025
W.P.(C) 6804/2024
M/S MOHAN FOOTCARE PVT. LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhas Mishra and Ms. Deepika Gawri, Advs.
VERSUS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CGST .....Respondent
Through: Mr. AkshayAmritanshu, SSC
WITH
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondent Department for issuance of PMT-03 and re-crediting of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter “ITC”) to the tune of Rs. 23,32,278/-.

3. The brief facts of the case are that sometime in March, 2018 the Petitioner had filed a refund claim for ITC which had accumulated till March, 2018, on account of inverted duty structure. It is stated that on 27th September, 2018, a Refund Sanction Order in FORM GST RFD-06 was passed, sanctioning a sum of Rs. 32,20,842/-. However, the same was partly adjusted towards erroneous refunds amounting to Rs. 23,32,278/- for the month of July, 2017 to February, 2018. Accordingly, only a sum of Rs.8,88,564/- was released to the Petitioner.

4. Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the parties and repeatedly, the Respondent Department was asked to issue PMT-03, in respect of the amount deducted from the refund claim.However, on 29th August, 2023, a letter was received by the Petitioner seeking payment of interest in respect of the erroneous refund amounting to Rs.23,32,278/-. The Petitioner even deposited the said interest. Finally, however, the impugned letter dated 8th March, 2024 was issued stating as under: “Subject: request for issue of GST-PMT 03 for recrediting ITC of Rs. 23,32,278/-reg— Please refer to your letter dated 07.02.2024 on the above captioned subject. It is to inform that your request has been examined and noticed that the amount of Rs. 23,32,278/- was adjusted by this office vide Form GST-RFD-06 issued under C. No. CGST-West/Div-MNGP/R- 116/MFPL/27/2018-19 dated 25.10.2018, against erroneous refunds of Rs. 23,32,278/- for the month of July' 2017 to Feb' 2018.

2. The option for recrediting of any amount by approving PMT-03 is not appearing in case of amount adjusted against any demand/erroneous Refund/ recovery of Government dues. Therefore, your request dated 07.02.2024 cannot be considered.”

5. Notice was issued in this matter initially and attempts were made to resolve the issue, in view of the technical difficulty which was expressed by the Respondent Department. However, now a counter affidavit has also been filed. In the counter affidavit the stand of the Respondent Department is as under:

“5. It is submitted that the Respondent has nowhere denied the re-credit of refund claim amounting to Rs. 23,32,278/-. It is only due to limitation of the GST Portal that the re-crediting of the ITC refund is pending. Since there is no functionality

on the GST Portal for re-crediting the amount, that the same is pending.”

6. A perusal of the above extracted paragraph would show that the recrediting of the ITC refund is pending only due to the technical limitation on the GST portal due to which the re-credit has not been possible.

7. Heard the ld. Counsels for the parties. The Department does not dispute that the Petitioner is entitled for re-crediting of the refund claim amounting to Rs.23,32,278/-. Repeated attempts have been made to reflect the same on the portal by issuance of PMT-03 which is made impossible due to a technical issue. In view thereof, the refund of the amount cannot be held back qua the Petitioner.

8. Under these circumstances, in the unusual facts of this case, let the amount of Rs. 23,32,278/- becredited to the Electronic Credit Ledger of the Petitioner within a period of 4 weeks, if required through manual intervention.

9. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 18, 2025/sh/msh