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 270 on interest on refund allowed for amount deposited during investigation

GST Update No 270 on interest on refund allowed for amount deposited during investigation
The discussion as regards to payment of interest on refund granted during the course of investigation has laid its roots from the erstwhile GST regime. On several occasions the departmental officers visit the premises of the taxpayers, carry on investigations and compel the assessee to deposit the alleged amount demanded. Subsequently, in various cases, the consideration is refunded to the taxpayer because the order attains finality. However, the moot question which pre-occupied the minds of taxpayers is whether the interest shall also be paid along with the amount refunded and if yes, at what rate and for which time period. There had been catena of cases on the subject matter under consideration. On parallel lines, one case came in front of New Delhi CESTAT in the case of M/S BBM IMPEX PVT. LIMITED. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update. The appellant has imported certain goods wherein dispute arose as regards to the value of goods. The appellant deposited the differential amount for the purpose of provisional release of goods amounting to Rs. 13,50,000/-. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued as on 04.02.2016 and order in original was passed wherein the proposed duty was confirmed along with penalty and fine. The appeal was allowed and demand and penalty were set aside. Hence, refund claim of amount deposited was filed as on 20.07.2020 along with interest. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. The matter was preferred further wherein it was imparted that the refund shall be granted along in accordance with provisions of Section 27A of Customs Act from the end of 3 months from date of application of refund. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim on 20.07.2020 claiming for the refund of the amount deposited of Rs. 13,50,000/- on 22.09.2015 along with appropriate interest. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the interest and granted refund only for the principal amount of Rs. 13,50,000/-. Thereafter, appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to hold that the appellant is entitled to interest under section 27A of the Customs Act. It was further observed that as per Section 27A, interest is payable from the end of three months, from the date of application of refund and accordingly, allowed interest on refund for the period 12.01.2021 to 04.03.2021 only, on the amount of Rs.12,85,013/-, observing that in view of the appropriation in the order-in-original, the appellant is not entitled to interest on the amount adjusted towards fine. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. The appellant submitted that the issue under consideration is not res integra and therefore interest is payable as per Section 129EE of the Customs Act. Therefore, the amount of pre-deposit should be refunded along with interest under Section 129EE of the Customs Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on recent decision in the case of Indo Rubber and Plastic Works wherein it was held that the deposit made during investigation becomes pre-deposit ifso facto and accordingly entitled to interest as per law from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Reference was also drawn to decision of Apex Court in the case of Reeba Textiles Ltd.- 2022 (Vol.3) TMI 693 and Sandvik Asia Ltd.- 2007 (8) STR 193 (SC). The Counsel of revenue placed reliance on decision of same Tribunal in the case of Jovex International wherein the case was travelled to Delhi High Court and stay has been granted for the order of the Tribunal. The Court after analysing the provisions and the precedent decisions held that the appellant is entitled to grant of interest as per Section 129EE of the Customs Act from the date of deposit till date of refund at the rate of 12%p.a. The decision was delivered in line with the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. stated above. The above decision proved to be welcoming decision by the business community. Although the subject matter under discussion is well acknowledged in various Judicial Rulings and is settled in favour of the assessee,reference may be made to the decision given by the CESTAT in the case of Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Customs and in the case of Marshall Foundry & Engg. (P) Ltd. V/s CGST. It is high time that these settled judgments should be recognised by the departmental officers so that unnecessary can be avoided.
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