Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner had filed multiple refund claims for the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 on the basis that its services qualified as export of services. Each refund application was processed in accordance with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017, leading to issuance of acknowledgments in RFD-02, show-cause notices in RFD-08, replies in RFD-09, and ultimately refund rejection orders in RFD-06. The petitioner thereafter filed appeals in Form APL-01 on 28.09.2021, 17.11.2022, and 23.11.2023 respectively, followed by physical submission of documents.

Despite repeated reminders, early-hearing requests, adjournment communications, personal hearing notices, CPGRAMS grievances, production of favorable orders from the CESTAT, Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, and even the Supreme Court’s ruling in Oceanic Consultants, the appeals remained undecided for periods ranging between two to four years. Numerous personal hearings were conducted, and the Appellate Authority acknowledged the appeals in APL-02 for two of the three years, yet no adjudication order was passed. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay, the petitioner invoked Article 226 praying for directions to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeals.

Issue:

Whether the prolonged non-disposal of refund appeals for over four years, despite multiple hearings, violates the mandate of Section 107(13) of the CGST Act, which contemplates disposal of appeals within one year “where it is possible to do so”, and whether the High Court should direct time-bound adjudication to prevent hardship caused by withholding of legitimate refund claims.

Held that:

The High Court held that the Appellate Authority cannot indefinitely delay adjudication of GST appeals, particularly refund-related appeals, as such delay has serious financial implications for businesses. Interpreting Section 107(13) of the CGST Act, the Court observed that while the phrase “where it is possible to do so” grants limited flexibility, it does not permit pendency for years, especially in the absence of any stay order from a Court or Tribunal. Since the first appeal had remained pending for more than four years—far beyond the statutory timeline—the Court found the delay unjustified.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide all three appeals strictly in accordance with law. The Court further clarified that if, upon adjudication, refund is found admissible, the petitioner shall also be entitled to statutory interest for the entire period of delay.

Case Name:  IDP Education India Private Limited Versus Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors. dated 21.11.2025

To read the complete judgement 2025 Taxo.online 3060