Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 180 on SC decision on rate of interest on delayed refunds

GST Update No 180 on SC decision on rate of interest on delayed refunds
GST law was incorporated with a motive of simplified and easy tax reform in the economy. It was expected that it will bring hassle free refund process. Even the Government has come out with a time frame to sanction the refund at the earliest for easy and efficient business operations. However, it seems that officers of GST department are reluctant as they adopt bureaucratic practice and red tape procedure to grant refunds to the taxpayers. Intentional and continuing delays are often a matter of discussion among the business community as they face liquidity issues. Moreover, the rate of interest in case of delay in payment of taxes by the assessee is 18% whereas the rate of interest for delay in sanction of refunds is 6%/9%. The issue regarding rate of interest to be granted for delayed sanction of refund claim has travelled down the line from Gujarat High Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/S M/S WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PVT. LTD [SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2995-2996 OF 2022]. The decision imparted is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The respondent contended that they are eligible for refund since as per section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, registered person making exports shall be eligible to claim refund of unutilised ITC or refund of IGST paid on exports. The respondent claimed that they shall be entitled to interest due to delay in receipt of compensation ranging between 94 to 290 days. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: • Modi Industries Ltd V/s Commissioner of Income Tax and Another • Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd • Sandvik Asia Ltd The Counsel of the petitioner opposed the same by placing reliance on the various following decisions • K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. V/s State of Karnataka • Sandvik Asia Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Income Tax-I Pune and others and Commissioner of Income Tax • Gujarat V/s Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. It was argued that the directions of Hon’ble High Court of payment of 9% CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??4 interest p.a. from date of filing of GSTR-3B is incorrect since as per Section 56 of CGST Act, 2017, the interest rate is 6% p.a. only. The Court held that the departmental officers are having no objection on eligibility of grant of refund of interest but disputes are related to rate of interest to be awarded in such a case i.e. 6% instead of 9% p.a. Provisions of Section 56 of CGST Act, 2017 were carefully examined wherein it is mentioned that interest on refund is to be awarded within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of application along with interest at 6% p.a. If in case, the amount to be refunded arises from any order which is not refunded within a period of 60 days, interest at the rate of 9% p.a. would be applicable as per proviso to Section 56 of CGST Act, 2017. The Court held that the “If the statue specifies interest, it shall be payable as per the terms of the provisions of the same. If the statue bars from payment of interest, in that case no interest shall be awarded. Where statue is silent and there is no bar on awarding interest, delay in paying compensation would require rewarding interest at reasonable rate on equitable grounds.” Quoting the decisions on which reliance is placed by the respondent, the court stated that interest awarded in excess of what is mentioned in statue was only for a period beyond 20 years wherein the matter was not covered in statue and therefore, decided by the Court. However, inordinate delay of 17 years in making refund was accepted at 9% p.a. in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd since there was inordinate delay in granting refund. However, in the present case, it was held that High Court has erred in its approach as there is a delay is of just 94 to 290 days which is not inordinate delay and therefore, interest awarded in such a case shall be only 6% and not 9%. From the above decision, it is crystal the GST provisions as regards grant of interest are having biased approach as the genuine taxpayers have to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on every error and on the contrary, the department just awards interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for delay in sanction of refunds. An earnest need is anticipated at the end of government to bring structural level changes coupled with sincere actions and put an end to imparity and inequality among the taxpayers by lowering down the interest rates payable by them for short payment of taxes or increase the rate CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 of interest for delayed sanction of refund claims.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com