J K Cement Works Vs Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Another (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the petitioner’s grievance that a refund allowed on 29.09.2022 had not been credited despite nearly four years passing. The Revenue stated that it had filed an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 against the refund order, with the appeal presented before the Tribunal on 27.03.2026. No hearing date had apparently been fixed.
The Court considered whether the refund could be withheld merely because the Revenue had preferred the appeal. Noting that the petitioner was a company engaged in manufacturing cement and that its refund claim had already been allowed, the Court directed the Revenue to release the refund upon the petitioner furnishing an undertaking that, if the departmental appeal was ultimately accepted and liability arose, the amount would be deposited in accordance with law.
The petition was accordingly disposed of. Upon furnishing the undertaking and a certified copy of the order, the refund was directed to be released within six weeks.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, which is having a manufacturing unit at Jharli, Haryana, where it manufactures cement. It approached this Court with the grievance that though an order of refund has been passed in its favour on 29.09.2022, but despite expiry of nearly four years, the refund amount itself has not been credited to its account.
2. The reply has been filed on behalf of the Revenue stating that an appeal has been preferred against the order, whereby the petitioner’s claim of refund has been allowed in appeal on 29.09.2022. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that it has filed further appeal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before the Tribunal and in such circumstances, the amount of refund has not been credited to the petitioner’s account.
3. It is undisputed that though the petitioner’s appeal was allowed way back in the year 2022, but the appeal before the Tribunal has been presented only on 27.03.2026. It does not appear that any date for hearing etc. has been fixed. In such circumstances, this Court is required to consider as to whether the amount of refund can be denied to the petitioner only because an appeal has been preferred by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a company and is engaged in manufacturing of cement. The petitioner cannot be treated as a fly-by-night operator.
5. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the Revenue to release the amount of refund to the petitioner, on petitioner’s furnishing an undertaking that in case the department’s appeal is ultimately accepted and some liability is worked out against the petitioner, the same would be duly deposited in accordance with law.
6. In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the observations that the respondents to release the refund amount to the petitioner upon its furnishing the aforesaid undertaking. On the furnishing of the undertaking and a certified copy of this order, the refund shall be released within a period of six weeks.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
