Case Law Details

Case Name : GSI Products Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 9161/2018 & CM 35316/2018 (stay)
Date of Judgement/Order : 29.05.2019
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (6103) Delhi High Court (1614)

GSI Products Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21st May, 2019, Mr Rajesh Prasad, Commissioner (VAT), Mr Shashank, Chairperson of the Refund Approval Committee (“RAC’) and Mr Rajesh Goyal, another member of the RAC which met on 10th May, 2019 are present in the Court.

2. Mr Satyakam informs the Court that Mr Rajesh Prasad has undertaken a complete review of the procedure and in view of what has transpired in the Court, he undertakes to disband the RAC. He proposes to issue appropriate notification to authorize a proper officer in respect of the refunds above the certain value strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi GST Act. He undertakes to place before the Court on the next date, by way of an affidavit, the steps taken by him in this regard.

3. In response to a query as to why the RAC deferred the proceedings beyond the date by which the refund orders had to be issued, Mr Satyakam informs the Court that the RAC was perhaps not apprised of the order passed by this Court by the officer of the Department who was attending the proceedings. He states that an explanation has been called from the concerned officer and the further steps taken in this regard would be placed before the Court on the next date.

4. Mr Satyakam also draws the attention of the Court to the documents filed after the previous date of hearing, which indicate that the refund claimed by the Petitioners in each of these cases have been processed and orders issued. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, however, states that there are two difficulties ± one is that the actual amount has not been credited to their respective accounts The second is that in certain cases, only the component of the State refund has been released and not the Central component.

5. Mr Satyakam undertakes to examine both aspects. The learned CGSC of UOI also assures the Court that wherever an order has been passed for refund of the Central component of the tax, the refund amount will stand credited to each of the concerned Petitioners, positively before the next date.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners are permitted to file affidavits before the next date explaining their claims for interest in terms of the DGST/CGST Act and in the facts and circumstances of these cases.

7. The said affidavits be filed at least one week prior to the next date of hearing in order to enable the Respondents to respond thereto before the next date.

8. The officers present today need not be present on the next date.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

November 2020