Case Law Details
Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs Additional Commissioner CGST South Commissionerate (Delhi High Court)
The matter concerned a refund order passed in FORM-RFD-06 on 5 May 2022 under the CGST Act. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 26 March 2025 was issued to the petitioner under Section 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for exercise of revisional powers on the ground that excess inadmissible refund had been granted. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority passed an order on 5 December 2025, which was challenged before the Delhi High Court.
The petitioner contended that Section 108(2)(b) of the CGST Act contains a mandatory limitation period of three years and that although a Show Cause Notice may have been issued within that period, no revisional order could legally be passed after expiry of the statutory limitation. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sneha Constructions v. The Joint Commissioner & Ors. The petitioner further argued that the Revisional Authority wrongly exercised powers under Section 74 of the CGST Act to impose penalty, even though the provision concerns determination of tax erroneously refunded and the Show Cause Notice contained no allegation regarding penalty. It was also contended that the Revisional Authority exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice and acted contrary to the statutory scheme of Section 74.
The petitioner sought protection against recovery proceedings, arguing that the impugned order was illegal. The respondent sought time to file a counter affidavit and opposed interim protection, contending that the petitioner itself was responsible for delay in the proceedings before the Revisional Authority due to adjournments sought by it. According to the respondent, if the period attributable to the petitioner’s delay was excluded, the revisional order would fall within the statutory limitation period.
The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent and granted time for filing of counter affidavit and rejoinder. In the meantime, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in view of the statutory mandate under Section 108(2)(b) of the CGST Act, particularly concerning limitation. The matter was listed for further hearing on 8 September 2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. An order of refund came to be passed vide FORM-RFD-06 on 5th May, 2022 [Annexure-7].
2. The said order was followed with a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 108 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’) in the matter of exercise of revisional powers.
3. The impugned notice dated 26th March, 2025, is based on the excess inadmissible refund made to the petitioner.
4. The Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order in exercise of the revisional powers on 5th December, 2025, which is impugned in the present petition.
5. Amongst other, the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the statutory mandate under clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 108 of the CGST Act, is worded in a negative way, so as to infer that even if Show Cause Notice is issued within a period of three years from the date of passing of the initial order, no order could have been passed once the statutory period of three years has expired thereunder.
6. He would claim that the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Sneha Constructions v. The Joint Commissioner & Ors. [APHC:0104:3103:2025].
7. The further contentions are that the Revisional Authority has proceeded to exercise powers under Section 74 of the CGST Act, so as to impose a penalty on the petitioner, particularly, when the said Section provides for the determination of tax which was erroneously refunded and does not speak of penalty which can be imposed, particularly, when there is no whisper of it in the Show Cause Notice. His further contentions are that the Revisional Authority has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and also passed an order in contravention to schemes of Section 74 of the CGST Act.
8. It is urged that in the aforesaid background, not only the order is illegal, but the respondent is required to be restrained from carrying out recovery proceedings against the petitioner.
9. While countering at this stage, learned counsel for respondent states that an appropriate counter shall be submitted within a period of four weeks from today, however, she would urge that the Court may not grant interim relief against the recovery proceedings, particularly, when the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay qua the statutory period prescribed under Section 108(2)(b) of the CGST Act. According to her, once such period is excluded, i.e., for which the petitioner has sought adjournment and delayed the proceedings before the Revisional Authority, the order has to be inferred within the statutory period.
10. She seeks further time to prepare and address.
11. That being so, issue notice to the respondent.
12. Ms. Monica Benjamin, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives notice for the respondent.
13. We permit the respondent to place the counter affidavit on record within a period of six weeks from today.
14. Rejoinder, if any, be placed on record within a period of four weeks thereafter.
15. In the meantime, there shall be no coercive action in the light of the statutory mandate provided under Section 108(2)(b) of the CGST Act, particularly, prescribing the limitation.
16. List on 8th September, 2026.
Author Bio
