The Delhi High Court, in a ruling, directed Vodafone Idea Limited to avail itself of the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law in a ₹10.91 lakh refund dispute arising from tax paid under the wrong state registration, while declining to examine the merits of the refund rejection at the writ stage.
Before the Delhi High Court, Vodafone Idea Limited filed a writ petition contesting an order dated 7 February 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Delhi East Commissionerate, which denied its GST refund claim of Rs. 10,91,924.
The case has arisen from a single transaction for which Vodafone Idea Limited had accidentally filed GST under its Delhi GST registration. Thereafter, the mistake was realised, and GST for the identical transaction was appropriately filed again under its Uttar Pradesh GST registration.
The same has a consequence in tax being filed twice for the same supply; therefore, the company asked for a refund of the amount filed incorrectly under the Delhi registration.
The GST authority then rejected the refund application as it was limited by limitation u/s 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, and also because the pertinent GSTR-1 return had not been revised within the stipulated time period.
The counsel of the company before the HC said that the tax was filed twice for the same transaction and that the amount filed under the Delhi registration was legally paid. As per them, the rejection of the refund on the procedural basis was not explained.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain at the initial phase issued notice and said that the applicant’s grievance pertained to a refund originating from an admitted mistake in GST payment. The case was listed for further hearing.
Therefore, when the petition had arisen for acknowledgement before the Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul, Vodafone Idea, on instructions, asked for permission to withdraw the writ petition based on the fact that an effective statutory appellate remedy was available under the GST law.
The court said that as an appeal can be submitted against the impugned refund rejection order, the same shall be precise for the applicant to pursue that remedy.
The court stated that it had not delved into the merits of the refund dispute. While computing the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal, the time spent by Vodafone Idea in prosecuting the writ petition shall not be included.
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to Vodafone Idea Limited to submit a plea under the law. The court said that all problems were left open to be investigated via the appellate authority.
| Applicant Name | M/s Vodafone Idea Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner |
| Case Number | W.p.(c) 13199/2025 |
| For the Petitioner | Mr Yogendra Aldak, Mr Agrim Arora, Mr Shashank Maheshwari |
| For Respondent | Mr Akash Panwar |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
