Karamsar Poultry Appliances Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.02.2026 by which the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Delhi (West), rejected a consequential refund claim of ₹3,44,469 arising after an Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 27.09.2025.
Material Facts
The petitioner had sought refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit for the tax period July 2019 to September 2019, claiming ₹6,49,667. By Order-in-Original dated 08.10.2021, the refund was partly sanctioned to the extent of ₹3,05,198, while the balance ₹3,44,469 was rejected. The Appellate Authority, by OIA dated 27.09.2025, set aside the rejection. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner reconsidered the consequential refund application and again rejected the claim by the impugned order dated 20.02.2026.
Procedural History
Aggrieved by the second rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the impugned order.
Legal Issue
Whether the Assistant Commissioner was precluded from examining the refund claim afresh after the appellate order had set aside the earlier rejection, and whether the impugned order warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.
Parties’ Submissions
The petitioner contended that the OIA dated 27.09.2025 had attained finality and concluded the refund issue, entitling it to refund of ₹3,44,469 with statutory interest. It argued that it should not be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.
