SAURABH AGGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S AARAV PLASTICS v. COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI NORTH AND ORS.

📅 June 8, 2026 👤 Team Batuk Consultancy 📂 GST, GST Case Laws

High Court, Delhi

Vibhu Bakhru, Justice & Amit Mahajan, Justice

SAURABH AGGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S AARAV PLASTICS

COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI NORTH AND ORS.

W.P. (C) 11453/2023 dated 04.10.2023

Law : GST

Decision : In favour of assessee

Refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit – Mismatch in the reported turnover – The petitioner had filed an application on 30.03.2022 seeking refund of a sum of ₹2,42,846/- on account of inverted duty structure – The adjudicating authority issued a show cause notice dated 25.05.2022 proposing to reject the petitioner’s application on two grounds. First, that there was a mismatch in the reported turnover for the relevant period (April 2021 to September, 2021); and second, that the petitioner’s claim was for ITC in respect of goods classified under HSN 6404 (ready footwear), which was also the petitioner’s outward supplies, and therefore, there could be no inverted duty structure – The petitioner’s appeal was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the copies of the statutory records (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A) for the relevant period and therefore, the petitioner’s claim could not be co-related – Held that: It is not disputed that the petitioner was not asked to furnish the said documents – It is also the petitioner’s case that the statutory records were available on its portal with the concerned authorities – It is considered apposite to remand the matter to the appellate authority for consideration afresh – The appellate authority shall issue an appropriate notice calling upon the petitioner to produce all such documents as the appellate authority considers necessary for processing the said claims – The petitioner shall also file such documents as are necessary, including the copies of its statutory returns, which according to the appellate authority – are necessary to co-relate the petitioner’s claim for refund, within a period of two weeks from today – The appellate authority is requested to consider the petitioner’s appeal and decide afresh within a period of six weeks from today.

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Vineet Bhatia & Bipin Punia, Advs.

SAURABH AGGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S AARAV PLASTICS v. COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI NORTH AND ORS.

SAURABH AGGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S AARAV PLASTICS v. COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI NORTH AND ORS.

🔒 Premium Content

Quick Link

Get In Touch