Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R Raghunandan Rao, Sumathi Jagadam, JJ
Louis Dreyfus Company Private Limited Through its Authorised Representative Swanand Venkatesh Ahankari S/o. Venkates Ahankar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Through the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for refund of gst on invalid charges. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. timing and validity of refund applications. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. issue of tax validity concerning ocean freight charges. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. prospective vs. retrospective effect of judgments. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. prospective and retrospective application of law. (Para 15) |
| 6. final ruling on the writ petitions. (Para 19) |
Order:
As identical issues are involved in the present set of cases and as the writ petitioner and the respondents are same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. The petitioner is a registered person and is in the business of import of agricultural products for onward use and sale within India. The petitioner had imported certain agricultural products on CIF basis and paid GST on ocean freight charges, on reverse charge mechanism basis, for various months in 2017. The petitioner had paid GST, on the ocean freight charges, on account of the notification No.8/2017-GST and Notification No.10/2017-GST. These notifications were challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., vs Union of India, [2020 SCC OnLine Guj 736] and came to be struck do
Refund applications for taxes paid under a mistake of law are not bound by strict statutory limits when the underlying tax was invalid.
The court held that refund claims for IGST on ocean freight are valid if filed after notifications imposing the levy are struck down as unconstitutional.
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
Interest is payable on a tax refund when the tax was collected unlawfully, dating from payment until refund, emphasizing equity and restitution principles.
The court affirmed that an unlawful tax collection obligates the government to refund with interest, reinforcing the principle of unjust enrichment and constitutional mandates under Article 265.
The court emphasized the need for timely refund processing under GST laws, overturning unjust rejection based on procedural grounds.
Refund of IGST is mandated when earlier notifications were found unconstitutional, confirming unavailability of time-bar arguments.
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
Voluntary payments made under a mistake are not subject to the limitation period for refund claims under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
