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 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