The Saket District Court decreed ₹5,25,000 with 6% interest in favour of an advocate who handled a company’s GST refund appeal, rejecting the company’s belated condition that fees were payable only after refund credit.
A Delhi civil court has held that a company which engaged an advocate to pursue its GST refund appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act could not withhold the agreed professional fee by insisting, once the work was under way, that the fee would be paid only if the refund reached its bank account [Rajinder Kumar Sethi v. Miso Study India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3190-D&SC(Saket)-GST].
The recovery suit was decided by District Judge Arul Varma of the Saket Courts, New Delhi.
The plaintiff, an advocate, stated that the company engaged him in January 2021 to handle a refund claim of ₹60,61,000 for FY 2017-18 to 2019-20, arising from excess GST deposited by its accounts department. The agreed fee was ₹5,25,000 up to the appeal stage before the Special Commissioner, Department of Trade & Taxes, Delhi, and a director executed a power of attorney in his favour.
After the refund was rejected under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, he filed an appeal in March 2021, which the Special Commissioner-I disposed of on 30 Jan 2023. His invoice dated 9 Jul 2022 went unpaid. In an email dated 28 Sep 2022, the company replied that it would pay only after he won the case and the refund was credited.
The company denied any direct contract. It said it had engaged a chartered accountant firm, Relan & Associates, which had independently engaged the plaintiff on terms making fees contingent on the refund. It also argued non-joinder of that firm, alleged that a bribe demand had been conveyed at a meeting, and contended that the plaintiff held only a power of attorney and no vakalatnama.
The Court relied on the power of attorney, which the company’s own witness admitted, and on the Special Commissioner’s order recording that the plaintiff had appeared on several hearing dates and concluded arguments on 28 Oct 2022. The fee of ₹5,25,000 was established through his notices and emails, and the company’s reply describing the refund condition was called “absolutely preposterous.”
The same witness admitted in cross-examination that no agreement provided for payment only after the refund was credited. The Court therefore treated the condition as an afterthought and held the bribery allegations unproved. It quoted S Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that “the relationship between a lawyer and client is more on trust than on contract.”
The suit was decreed for ₹5,25,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing until the decree, and pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum until realisation. Fixing the rate, the Court referred to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (AIR 2001 SC 3095). No costs were awarded.
2026-juristway.com-3190-D&SC(Saket)-GST
