+91 8192005690 info@markbly.in
Free Consultation
MARK AND ASSOCIATES LLP MARK AND ASSOCIATES LLP CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
GST

GST : SLP dismissed against impugned order of High Court that where for incorrect utilization of ITC, refund order pertaining to amounts standing to credit of Electronic Cash Ledger of assessee was placed in abeyance vide impugned order under section 108,

Published on 13 Apr 2026

[2025] 176 taxmann.com 547 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Union of India

v.

HCC VCCL Joint Venture*

SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ. SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 24660 OF 2025†

JULY 9, 2025

Revision - Powers of Authority - High Court by impugned order held that pre-requisite condition for invocation of section 108 of CGST Act is formation of an opinion that an order made under CGST Act is erroneous, prejudicial to interest of revenue, illegal or improper - Where allegation of improper utilization of ITC was one which was distinct and unconnected with order sanctioning refund, further, there was no finding or conclusion by Commissioner which could have tended to indicate that opinion expressed in refund order was rendered unsustainable, illegal or invalid, impugned order placing in abeyance refund order pertaining to amounts standing to credit of Electronic Cash Ledger of assessee for incorrect utilization of ITC, was not sustainable - SLP was filed against said order - HELD : There was absolutely no reason to interfere with order of High Court - SLP filed against impugned order was to be dismissed [Section 54, read with section 108, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017] [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]

CASE REVIEW

HCC VCCL Joint Venture v. Union of India [2024] 168 taxmann.com 343 (Delhi)/[2025] 94 GSTL 309 (Delhi) (Para 4) SLP dismissed

S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G., Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Ishaan Sharma, Umesh Babu Chaurasia, Ms. Astha Sharma and Snehshish Mukherjee, Advs. for the Petitioner. Bharat Raichandani, Ms. Komal Mittal, Deepak Kumar Khokhar, Ms. Prachi Sharma, Gaurav Teotia, Advs. and Aneesh Mittal, AOR for the Respondent.

ORDER

  1. Delay condoned.
  2. We see absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
  • However, question of law, if any, is kept open.
  • The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.

■ ■

*In favour of assessee.

†Arising out of order of High Court of Delhi in HCC VCCL Joint Venture v. Union of India [2024] 168 taxmann.com 343/[2025] 94 GSTL 309.