The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to IndiGo in a GST refund dispute while examining a significant legal issue relating to limitation under Section 108 of the CGST Act — whether a revisional authority can pass an order after expiry of the statutory limitation period merely because the show cause notice was issued within time.
Observing the limitation-related challenge raised by the airline, the bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul directed that no coercive action be taken against it pending further proceedings.
The dispute arose from a refund order issued in FORM GST RFD-06 on 5 May 2022. Subsequently, tax authorities initiated revisional proceedings under Section 108 of the CGST Act and issued a show cause notice dated 26 March 2025 alleging that excess and inadmissible refund had been granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, an order exercising revisional powers was passed on 5 December 2025, which was challenged before the High Court.
The principal challenge advanced by the petitioner concerned the interpretation of Section 108(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the provision contains a negative statutory mandate and therefore bars passing of a revisional order beyond three years from the date of the original order. According to the petitioner, merely issuing a show cause notice within three years would not satisfy the legal requirement if the final revisional order itself is passed after the limitation period expires.
To support this argument, reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sneha Constructions v. Joint Commissioner & Others, where a similar interpretation regarding limitation under revisional powers was reportedly considered.
The petitioner also questioned the manner in which the revisional authority exercised its powers under Section 74 of the CGST Act. It was argued that Section 74 deals with determination of tax that has been short paid or erroneously refunded and does not independently authorize imposition of penalty in the manner adopted in the impugned proceedings. The petitioner further claimed that there was no mention regarding imposition of penalty in the original show cause notice and therefore the authority had travelled beyond the scope of the notice itself.
Further submissions stated that the revisional authority acted contrary to the statutory framework and exceeded the permissible boundaries of adjudication. On this basis, the petitioner sought not only quashing of the impugned order but also protection against recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to it.
The department opposed grant of interim protection and contended that the petitioner itself was responsible for delay in the revisional proceedings. According to the department, the period attributable to adjournments and delays caused by the petitioner ought to be excluded while computing the limitation period under Section 108(2)(b). It argued that after such exclusion, the revisional order could still be treated as having been passed within the permissible statutory timeframe.
After hearing the parties, the Delhi High Court issued notice and permitted the Revenue to file its counter affidavit. Significantly, the Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in view of the statutory limitation issue raised under Section 108(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on 8 September 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Interglobe Aviation Limited Versus Additional Commissioner CGST South Commissionerate
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6405/2026
Date: 12.05.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: V. Lakshmikumaran
Counsel For Respondent: Monica Benjamin, Senior Standing Counsel
