Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 19358/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prakash Shah, Jay Savla, Mihir Mehta, Mohit Rawal, Suyog Bhave, Jas Sanghavi, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Rajpal Singh, Aditya Bajaj
For the Respondents: Sangita Malhotra, Akash Panwar

High courts shall not exercise writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists, especially where procedures like personal hearings were completed. Judicial intervention is limited to cases involving an inherent lack of jurisdiction, distinguishing errors in jurisdictional exercise as matters for statutory appeal.

Headnote:(A) Statutes - Refund of tax - Rejection of application - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - Interference is permissible only when there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction or exceptional circumstances - Where opportunities of hearing and filing replies were afforded, alleged procedural grievances do not constitute lack of jurisdiction - Appellate remedy before the tribunal remains an efficacious remedy for disputed findings of facts. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 27)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope and Ambit - Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction is not an appellate court - Interference is warranted only in cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction or extraordinary circumstances - Where alternate statutory remedy is available, a petition is not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. (Paras 23, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for a refund of taxes paid which was rejected by the adjudicating authority due to missing documentation and adverse internal intelligence reports. Appeals against these rejections were dismissed by the appellate authority. The petitioner challenged the orders, alleging a breach of principles of natural justice regarding personal hearings and the introduction of new material not mentioned in the show cause notices.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities for personal hearings and to respond to the show cause notices. The court highlighted the distinction between a lack of jurisdiction and an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, ruling that the latter should be addressed through the appropriate statutory appellate forum.

Issues: Whether the impugned orders suffer from a jurisdictional infirmity due to alleged violation of principles of natural justice and whether the petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The availability of an efficacious statutory remedy and the absence of exceptional circumstances preclude the invocation of writ jurisdiction, especially when the petitioner has been granted adequate opportunities for representation, conforming to procedural requirements.

Result: Petition disposed of with liberty to avail statutory remedy.

Table of Content
1. factual history of the refund application and appeals process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding natural justice and statutory remedies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. distinction between jurisdictional error and exercise of jurisdiction; refusal to entertain writ given existence of efficacious statutory remedies. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. final disposal of the writ petition. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The present writ petition assails the impugned order in appeal dated 22.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4, dismissing the petitioner’s appeals against the two orders in original passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 22.11.2024 and order in original dated 05.12.2024 seeking refund of ₹4,10,37,815, ₹23,68,800 and ₹12,90,899 respectively.

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, and is engaged in the business of export of mobile phones, desktops, laptops and other electronic items, and is duly registered with the GST framework as GSTIN 07AARCM3030A1ZV.

3. In response to the petitioner’s applications for refund under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (hereinafter CGST Act) dated 20.09.2024, 21.09.2024 and 19.10.2024, Respondent No. 3 issued three show cause notices, two on 15.10.2024 and one on 04.11.2024, inter-alia proposing rejection of the refund applications on account of failure to submit shipping bills, bank statements, bank realization certificates, reconciliation of GSTR-1, GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B, etc. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of 10 days to file a reply to the show cause notices, and a further opportunity of personal hearing on the date of choice of the petitioner was given.

4. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted three replies; two on 26.10.2024 and one on 21.11.2024 submitting the requisite documents, and further stating that the physical copies of the bills and other documents had been given to the CGST inspector upon his physical examination of the petitioner’s office. Furthermore, the petitioner opted to appear through their authorized representative on 28.10.2024 for the physical hearing.

5. The petitioner’s three applications for refund came to be rejected vide two orders in original dated 22.11.2024 and order in original dated 05.12.2024. Respondent no. 3 inter-alia noted that there were DGARM Alerts issued against some of the petitioner’s suppliers as their GST registration had been cancelled on account of suspicious transactions and lack of verification.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred three appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act read with Section 109 of the CGST Rules bearing No. 587/2024, 588/2024 and 52/2025 against two orders in original dated 22.11.2024 and one order in original dated 05.12.2024 respectively.

7. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 07.04.2025, 09.04.2025, 16.04.2025 and 24.04.2025. The petitioner appeared for personal hearing on 24.04.2025 through his Chartered Accountant and stated that in two out of the three cases, there are only 3-4 suppliers, and in the third case, there are approximately 37 suppliers, however, the DGARM alert has been issued against only one supplier.

8. The appeals came to be dismissed vide the impugned order in appeal dated 22.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4, which is presently under challenge before this court. Respondent No. 4 noted that in absence of any cogent evidence supplied by the petitioner, there were credible reasons to doubt the veracity of the transactions of the petitioner.

Submissions by Petitioner

9. Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Orders-in-Original are vitiated as the rejection of refund is founded on material not disclosed in the show cause notices issued in Form GST RFD-08. It is stated that the notices merely sought documents and reconciliation sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINitin Wasudeo Sambre, Ajay Digpaul, JJMahanadi Exporttek Private Limited – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentW.P.(C) 19358/2025

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 19358/2025