Delhi High Court Seeks Response From CBIC On Airtel's Plea For Refund Of Excess GST Worth Rs. 923 Crores
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought a reply from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs on Bharti Airtel's plea claiming non-implementation of the Delhi High Court's order allowing rectification of excess GST worth Rs.923 crores paid by it for the period between July-September 2017. Citing 'great financial strain' telecom major Bharti Airtel moved the...
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought a reply from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs on Bharti Airtel's plea claiming non-implementation of the Delhi High Court's order allowing rectification of excess GST worth Rs.923 crores paid by it for the period between July-September 2017.
Citing 'great financial strain' telecom major Bharti Airtel moved the Court seeking implementation of its order dated May 5, 2020 vide which the Court had allowed its plea for rectification and refund of excess GST paid by it during the said period.
Adv. Gulati appearing for Airtel stated that in May the court had allowed the process of rectification to begin and in pursuance of the order, Airtel had approached CBIC (then CBEC) for beginning the process of verification of its claims and subsequent refund of Rs.923 crores along with interest which was lying with the Department.
He claimed that Airtel had also written letters to various authorities following up on the implementation of the order, however, 4 months had passed but it had received no reply from the Department.
"Now they are saying their Special Leave Petition is listed before the Supreme Court," he said, referring to the Department's appeal against the May 5 High Court order which had allowed Airtel's plea.
"Our Rs.923 crores alongwith interest is lying with them. We are under great financial strain."
Responding to the plea, Justice Manmohan, the presiding judge of the Division Bench hearing the plea, stated, "It's no answer to say SLP is pending. At least verification should've been completed, refund is consequential to that."
Adv Harpreet appearing for the Department said that the Department had mentioned that implementing the judgment was not possible and cited "technical issues", however, they had been advised by the counsels that without a stay from the Supreme Court on the May 5 order, they would have to implement it.