M/s. Triune Projects Private Limited filed a case against Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Commissioner of State GST and VAT, alleging that the GST department failed to process a refund despite a favorable court order from March 28, 2025. The Delhi High Court had previously disposed of a related writ petition, referencing the case of M/s Jian International vs Commissioner of Delhi GST, but the refund was still not processed. The petitioner then sought enforcement of the order, but the court stated that no further clarification was necessary and that the department should comply with the law.
Despite these instructions, the refund remained unpaid, prompting the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the department. The central issue was whether the failure to grant the refund, despite clear court directions, constituted non-compliance requiring judicial intervention. The court reiterated that its previous order was explicit and did not require additional clarification.
Read More: Delhi High Court : Relying on Ambika Traders, GST law permits consolidation of multiple financial years in a single SCN; Writ not maintainable where GST Appellate Remedy Exists [Order attached]
The GST department acknowledged that the matter was under consideration and assured the court of compliance. The court stressed the importance of following its directions promptly and in full. As a result, the court granted the department a final opportunity to complete the refund process, setting a deadline of three weeks for compliance.
Order Date - 13 March 2026
Parties: M/S. TRIUNE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs MR NIKHIL KUMAR COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST AND VAT, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES, DELHI
Facts -
- M/s. Triune Projects Private Limited approached the Delhi High Court alleging that despite a favorable order dated 28.03.2025, the GST department failed to grant its rightful refund.
- Earlier, the Court had disposed of the writ petition relying on the precedent in M/s Jian International vs Commissioner of Delhi GST.
- When no action was taken, the petitioner filed an application seeking enforcement, but the Court clarified that no further clarification was needed and compliance should be done as per law.
- Even after this, the refund remained unpaid, forcing the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the department.
Issue -
- Whether failure to grant refund despite clear court directions amounts to non-compliance requiring judicial intervention?
Order -
- The Court noted that its earlier order was already clear and did not require any further clarification.
- The GST department admitted that the matter was under consideration and assured compliance.
- The Court emphasized that directions must be followed in letter and spirit without delay.
- It granted a final opportunity, directing the department to complete the refund process within 3 weeks.
