Case Details: Sisla Laboratories vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pratibha M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee had filed refund applications, but the rejection of those claims came to the petitioner’s knowledge only during the course of the present writ proceedings, through an additional affidavit filed by the Department. The petitioner contended that the rejection order had never been communicated earlier, and that a deficiency memo issued in response to the refund application was untraceable. It was submitted that the lack of communication had deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to pursue appellate remedies. The matter was accordingly placed before the Delhi High Court.
HC Held
The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner’s statutory remedies could not be shut out due to the delay in communication, particularly when such delay was attributable to the Department. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under section 107 of the CGST Act and the Delhi GST Act. It was further held that the petitioner would be entitled to refund along with statutory interest.
The post Refund Allowed with Interest as Deficiency Memo Untraceable | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
