Facts of the Case

Rajcomp Info Services Ltd., a Rajasthan government undertaking, had submitted a GST refund application way back on 10 August 2019, which remained pending for nearly four years despite the petitioner repeatedly approaching the Central and State GST authorities.

As late as 22 August 2022, the petitioner was informed by the Central GST help desk that its refund application was pending with the Central Jurisdictional Officer.

Having waited a further nine months without any decision, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking a mandamus for disposal of its refund claim.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the CGST authorities should be directed to decide the petitioner's long-pending refund application within a fixed timeframe.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The refund application, filed in August 2019, remained undecided nearly four years later despite repeated follow-ups, and the petitioner sought a time-bound direction for its disposal.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for the respondent entered appearance on advance copy; no substantive opposition on the merits of the refund claim is recorded — the matter proceeded straight to a disposal on the limited relief sought.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench, not inclined to keep the matter pending given the advance-copy appearance by the respondent's counsel, disposed of the petition with a direction to the jurisdictional officer to decide the petitioner's refund application within an outer limit of 60 days.

Important Clarification

This is a bare timeline mandamus compelling the department to decide a pending GST refund claim — it does not examine or rule on whether the petitioner is actually entitled to the refund, or on any substantive question of GST refund law. Businesses with long-pending refund claims can draw comfort that courts will readily direct time-bound disposal, but the entitlement itself remains for the department to assess.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 54 (refund of tax), the general provision underlying the petitioner's claim.
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226, under which the writ petition was filed.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner, Rajcomp Info Services Ltd., to the limited extent of securing a time-bound direction (decision within 60 days) — no ruling was made on the actual entitlement to refund.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
  • Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8565 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anil Kumar Upman
  • Date of Order: 1 June 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.