Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited challenging the appellate order dated 22.08.2025 which upheld rejection of GST refund claims aggregating to ₹4.10 crore, ₹23.68 lakh and ₹12.90 lakh. The petitioner, engaged in export of electronic items, had filed refund applications under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The refund claims were rejected through Orders-in-Original dated 22.11.2024 and 05.12.2024 after the department raised objections regarding shipping bills, bank statements, bank realization certificates, reconciliation statements, and DGARM alerts concerning suspicious suppliers whose GST registrations were cancelled.
The petitioner argued that the refund rejection was based on DGARM alerts and Anti-Evasion communications which were never disclosed in the show cause notices, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It was also contended that no effective personal hearing was granted before passing the Orders-in-Original and that the appellate authority failed to consider documents such as bank statements, e-way bills, invoices, shipping bills, and reconciliation statements furnished during proceedings. The petitioner further submitted that the statutory remedy under Section 112 before the GST Appellate Tribunal was not efficacious due to delays in GSTAT functioning.
The respondents opposed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act. The department submitted that adequate opportunities of reply and personal hearing were granted at both adjudication and appellate stages and that the authorities had considered the materials placed on record before recording findings regarding deficiencies in supplier verification and transaction details.
