M/S MOHAN FOOTCARE PVT. LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CGST

Judgment text excerpt

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18th September, 2025 + W.P.(C) 6804/2024 M/S MOHAN FOOTCARE PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhas Mishra and Ms. Deepika Gawri, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CGST .....Respondent Through: Mr. AkshayAmritanshu, SSC with Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking directions to the Respondent Department for issuance of PMT-03 and re-crediting of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter “ITC”) to the tune of Rs. 23,32,278/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that sometime in March, 2018 the Petitioner had filed a refund claim for ITC which had accumulated till March, 2018, on account of inverted duty structure. It is stated that on 27th September, 2018, a Refund Sanction Order in FORM GST RFD-06 was passed, sanctioning a sum of Rs. 32,20,842/-. However, the same was partly adjusted towards erroneous refunds amounting to Rs. 23,32,278/- for the month of July, 2017 to February, 2018. Accordingly, only a sum of Rs.8,88,564/- was released to the Petitioner. 4. Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the parties and repeatedly, the Respondent Department was asked to issue PMT-03, in Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNITA W.P.(C) 6804/2024 Page 1 of 3 KUMARI Signing Date:22.09.2025 19:21:30 respect of the amount deducted from the refund claim.However, on 29th August, 2023, a letter was received by the Petitioner seeking payment of interest in respect of the erroneous refund amounting to Rs.23,32,278/-. The Petitioner even deposited the said interest. Finally, however, the impugned letter dated 8th March, 2024 was issued stating as under: “Su