Wrong State GST Payment Leads to ₹10.91 Lakh Refund Dispute: Delhi HC Directs Vodafone Idea to avail Statutory Appeal [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed Vodafone Idea Limited to avail the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law in a Rs. 10.91 lakh refund dispute arising from GST paid under the wrong State registration, while declining to examine the merits of the refund rejection at the writ stage.

Vodafone Idea Limited filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 7 February 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Delhi East Commissionerate, by which its refund claim of Rs. 10,91,924 was rejected.

The case arose from a single transaction for which Vodafone Idea Limited had inadvertently paid GST under its Delhi GST registration. The mistake was later realized and GST for the same transaction was correctly paid again under its Uttar Pradesh GST registration.

This resulted in tax being paid twice for the same supply, so the company sought a refund of the amount wrongly paid under the Delhi registration.

The refund application was rejected by the GST authority because it was barred by limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and also because the relevant GSTR-1 return had not been amended within the prescribed time period.

Before the High Court, the company’s counsel argued that the tax was admittedly paid twice for the same transaction and that the amount paid under the Delhi registration was not legally due. They submitted that the rejection of the refund on procedural grounds was unjustified.

At the initial stage, the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain issued notice and observed that the petitioner’s grievance related to a refund arising out of an admitted mistake in payment of GST. The matter was listed for further hearing.

Subsequently, when the petition came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul, Vodafone Idea, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that an effective statutory appellate remedy was available under the GST law.

The court observed that since an appeal could be filed against the impugned refund rejection order, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to pursue that remedy.

The court pointed out that it had not gone into the merits of the refund dispute. It also explained that the time spent by Vodafone Idea in prosecuting the writ petition would be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal.

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to Vodafone Idea Limited to file an appeal in accordance with law. The court made it clear that all issues were left open to be examined by the appellate authority.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates