The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere in a GST refund dispute filed by Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited, holding that the petitioner must avail the statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
The bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked merely because the petitioner disagrees with findings recorded by tax authorities.
The case arose from rejection of multiple refund claims filed by the petitioner under Section 54 of the CGST Act, amounting to over ₹4.47 crore. The adjudicating authority had rejected the claims citing deficiencies such as non-submission of key documents, discrepancies in reconciliation statements, and concerns arising from DGARM alerts against certain suppliers. These findings were subsequently upheld by the appellate authority through an order dated August 22, 2025.
The petitioner argued that the refund rejection was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice. It was contended that the authorities relied on DGARM alerts and anti-evasion inputs which were not part of the show cause notices, thereby depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to respond. The petitioner further submitted that no effective personal hearing was granted at the adjudication stage and that relevant documents such as invoices, bank statements, shipping bills, and reconciliation statements were not properly considered.
Buy Now: 500+ CGST Notifications (2017–2025) | Clickable Index E-Magazine | Hyperlinked Original PDFs
The department maintained that adequate opportunity had been granted at every stage. It pointed out that show cause notices were issued, replies were filed by the petitioner, and opportunities for personal hearing were provided. It was also argued that the impugned orders were reasoned and based on examination of material on record. Further, the Revenue contended that an effective alternative remedy exists before the GSTAT under Section 112 of the CGST Act.
The High Court, after examining the record, observed that the petitioner had indeed been afforded opportunities to respond to the show cause notices and to participate in personal hearings. The Court noted that hearings were also granted at the appellate stage and were attended by the petitioner’s representatives. It held that the grievance raised was not about absence of opportunity, but rather about non-acceptance of the petitioner’s submissions by the authorities.
On the issue of natural justice, the Court clarified that this was not a case of complete denial of hearing. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is generally invoked only in cases involving lack of jurisdiction or gross violation of natural justice, and not where the dispute relates to appreciation of evidence or correctness of findings.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the GSTAT remedy was ineffective. It recorded that the tribunal is functional and capable of hearing appeals, thereby constituting an efficacious statutory remedy. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not bypass the appellate mechanism and directly invoke writ jurisdiction.
Concluding that no exceptional circumstances were made out, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the GSTAT under Section 112 of the CGST Act. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case and all contentions remain open for consideration before the appellate forum.
Case Details
Case Title: Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: JURISHOUR-1002-HC-2026(DEL)
Case No.: W.P.(C) 19358/2025
Date: 28/04/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Prakash Shah, Sr. Adv.
Counsel For Respondent: Sangita Malhotra
Read More: NFAC | Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 70.85 Crore Income Tax Demand for Breach of Natural Justice
