$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20^th December, 2025 Pronounced on: 18^th April, 2026 Uploaded on: 18^th April, 2026 + W.P.(C) 12512/2021 M/S KANIKA EXPORTS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Sharma & Mr. Deepak Gautam, Advs.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Singla SSC CBIC with Ms.

Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.

Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Ms. Shubhra Parashar & Ms. Priya Shukla, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 17538/2022 M/S MALIK SEASONING AND SPICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Dinesh Parashar, Advs.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

versus COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX.....Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Singla SSC CBIC with Ms.

Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode

2. The question that has arisen in these petitions is whether the Petitioners’ refund applications were filed within the prescribed period of limitation or not. Although at first glance, the issue appears to be quite simple, it has been rendered complex due to various interlinked and interconnected provisions, in the GST regime, including amendments introduced in the statute. Before examining the legal framework, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts.

Factual Background Facts in W.P.(C) 12512/2021

3. The Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of readymade garments and holds a GST registration bearing GSTIN No.

07AAKFK6680N1ZL

4. At the time of export of goods, it did not pay any tax and hence, the supplies were zero-rated supplies of goods, exported out of India. After the exports were effected, the Petitioner filed a refund application dated 29^th March, 2020, claiming refund of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’) accumulated as on 31^st March, 2018 amounting to Rs.21,88,802/-, for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018.

5. Pursuant thereto, a Show Cause Notice dated 22^nd April, 2020 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter, ‘CGST’) to the Petitioner in respect of the refund application dated 29^th March, 2020. Vide the said Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the refund claim should not be rejected. In response, the Petitioner filed a reply dated 30^th April, 2020 and contested on various grounds.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Delhi vide the Order-in-Original dated 14^th May, 2020 (hereinafter, ‘OIO-1’), rejected the refund claim of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority. Vide the Order-in-Appeal dated 14^th July, 2021 (hereinafter, ‘OIA-1’), the Additional Commissioner CGST Appeals-II, Delhi rejected the appeal of the Petitioner and upheld OIO-1.

7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that both the Adjudicating Authority as also the Appellate Authority have not applied Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’), which specifically deals with unutilised ITC, while considering the refund claim of the Petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing OIO-1 and OIA-1, as also seeking a direction to the GST Department to process Petitioner’s refund claim of the accumulated ITC.

Reasoning by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority

8. The Adjudicating Authority framed the following two issues in OIO-1:

(i) whether the refund claim was filed by the Petitioner before the appropriate jurisdictional authority or not;

(ii) whether the refund claim was filed by the Petitioner within time or not;

9. On the first issue, the Adjudicating Authority held that since the principal place of business of the Petitioner was at M-36, Greater Kailash-II, South Delhi-110048, it had filed the refund claim before the correct jurisdictional authority i.e., Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate, Okhla Di