Alkesh Tacker HUF v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 12 Aug 2025 · 2025:DHC:6868-DB
Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain
W.P.(C) 2486/2025
2025:DHC:6868-DB
tax appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed the GST refund claim of the petitioner, holding that refund cannot be rejected on the ground of late filing of LUT when it was executed prior to exports and all documents were duly submitted.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 2486/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th August, 2025
W.P.(C) 2486/2025
ALKESH TACKER HUF REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA ALKESH TACKER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kanishk Rana, Adv
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel for
GNCTD.
Mr. R. Ramachandran, SSC for Respondent.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned Refund Rejection Order dated 14th November, 2024.

3. The brief background of the case is that the Petitioner had purchased certain products being cordless sets and other items and had paid GST on the said purchases.

4. The same were exported by the Petitioner between September to December, 2021. These exports were zero rated supplies under Rule 96 (A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The Petitioner filed a refund application on 12th August, 2023 and claimed refund of the unutilized input credit tax of Rs 10,05,341/-. A Show Cause Notice dated 5th September, 2024 (hereinafter, SCN) was then issued to the Petitioner seeking the following documents from the Petitioner:-

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                           Sl. No.        Description/Non-submission of the Amount inadmissible   │
│                                          following documents                                     │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                           1.             Declaration under second and third                      │
│                                          proviso to section 54(3)                                │
│                           2.             Undertaking in relation to sections                     │
│                                          16(2)(c) and section 42(2)                              │
│                           3.             Statement 3 under rule 89(2)(b) and                     │
│                                          rule 89(2)(c)                                           │
│                           4.             Statement 3A under rule 89(4)                           │
│                           5.             Self-declaration regarding non-                         │
│                                          prosecution under sub-rule (1)      Rs.10,05,341        │
│                                          of rule 91 of the CGST Rules for                        │
│                                          availing provisional refund                             │
│                           6.             C.A Certificate                                         │
│                           7.             Letter of Undertaking (LUT)                             │
│                           8.             Undertaking to refund GST amount                        │
│                                          as per rule 96(8)                                       │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

9. It is noticed by this Court that in several cases, whenever refund applications are filed, SCNs are issued, and in some manner or the other, the Department holds up the processing of refund which is completely impermissible.

10. A perusal of this case would show that in the SCN dated 5th September, 2024, various documents were sought and the same were supplied by the Petitioner in a prompt and diligent manner. This fact of the documents having been supplied has also been acknowledged in paragraph No.4 of the impugned order itself. The said paragraph reads as under:

“4. The taxpayer has filed all the relevant documents pertaining to the refund under category of Refund of ITC on Export of Goods & Services without payment of Integrated Tax as per the circular No. 125 dated 18-11-2019 issued by CBEC.” 11. Thus, a specious and untenable plea that the LUT Certificate was filed after the exports has been raised as the ground for rejection. A perusal of the LUT certificate would show that it is dated 26th August, 2021 and the exports were made during the following time period as provided in the shipping bills:

12. A perusal of the dates of the shipping bills would show that they are dated from 13th September 2021. All these documents are also clearly available with the Customs Department which are ignored and the refund has been rejected.

13. The reason given for rejecting the refund is thus, completely unsustainable.

14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14th November, 2024 is set aside. The refund of the Petitioner shall be processed and credited along with the statutory interest within a period of two weeks from today. If the same is not duly credited, after the expiry of 03rd September, 2025, interest @ 12% would be liable to be paid to the Petitioner.

15. A copy of this order shall be brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCT, Delhi so that proper instructions are given in order to ensure that the exporters and others who are entitled to refunds are not repeatedly subjected to the hardships to obtain the refunds.

16. The present petition stands disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2025/sk/ss