$~18 & 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011049982024 + W.P.(C) 1410/2025 M/S CA INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Upendra Patel, Adv. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIVISION PALAM CGST DELHI, SOUTH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, SSC, CGST with Ms. Upasna Vashistha and Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advs. # CNR No. DLHC011049992024 + W.P.(C) 1411/2025 M/S CA INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Upendra Patel, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,PALAM DIVISION, CGST DELHI, SOUTH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, SSC, CGST with Ms. Upasna Vashistha and Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking, inter alia, setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.06.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, as well as the Order-in-Original dated 20.12.2023, and for grant of refund of IGST amounting to Rs. 54,816.61/- along with applicable interest. 2. Admittedly, the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:51:43 2017 before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), which is now functional, against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14.06.2024. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in a connected writ petition involving the Petitioner, the matter has been remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the said case is distinguishable, inasmuch as the reply filed by the Petitioner had not been considered therein, whereas in the present case the competent authority has passed a detailed order after considering the various aspects of the matter. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to permit the Petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The Petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal, if so advised. 6. It is directed that in the event the Petitioner files the statutory appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J SHAIL JAIN, J AUGUST 7, 2026/kp/rm This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:51:43