https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793501 The Delhi HC recorded a prima facie view that the respondents had not complied with earlier refund directions and may be in contempt of the order dated 28 March 2025, after noting repeated directions to process and grant the refund, the later rejection of the claim, and the petitioner's complaint of non-compliance. As the respondents sought time to file a reply, the Court granted four weeks for the response and two weeks thereafter for rejoinder, and directed the matter to be listed on the next date. The contempt proceedings were therefore kept pending for further consideration. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:46:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793501 The Delhi HC recorded a prima facie view that the respondents had not complied with earlier refund directions and may be in contempt of the order dated 28 March 2025, after noting repeated directions to process and grant the refund, the later rejection of the claim, and the petitioner's complaint of non-compliance. As the respondents sought time to file a reply, the Court granted four weeks for the response and two weeks thereafter for rejoinder, and directed the matter to be listed on the next date. The contempt proceedings were therefore kept pending for further consideration. Case-Laws GST Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793501