Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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