IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
ARUN BHANSALI, ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JJ.
M/s Baba Super Minerals Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13746 of 2022, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13747 of 2022, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13962 of 2022 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14201 of 2022
Decided On : 05-01-2024
(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 56 - Refund of tax - Petitioner entitled to interest on refund not paid within 60 days - Deficiencies in applications rectified, but interest not ordered - Court directs payment of interest as per provisions of Section 56. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
(B) Refund Applications - Deficiencies in applications - Interest payable only from date of receipt of complete application - Court clarifies that interest is due for delays beyond 60 days. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed applications for refund under GST, but interest was not paid despite delays beyond 60 days. Respondents argued deficiencies in applications delayed the process.
Findings of Court:
Respondents must calculate the delay and pay interest as per Section 56 for the period beyond 60 days from the date of completing the application.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed refund despite deficiencies in the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that interest is payable for delays beyond 60 days, and deficiencies in applications affect the start date for calculating interest.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for payment of interest.
ORDER :
These petitions have been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of non-payment of the interest on refund and the Appellate Authority not adjudicating the issue on the said aspect, raised by the petitioner.
2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner, being entitled to seek refund, made applications, seeking refund, by submitting the Form GST RFD-01A and Refund ARN receipt.
3. The respondents pointed out the deficiencies in three cases and the deficiencies were rectified by the petitioner, whereafter acknowledgment has been issued, however, while granting the refund, the interest, to which the petitioner was entitled under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act of 2017'), was not ordered to be paid.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, inter-alia, on the said aspect, however, the Appellate Authority also did not deal with the said aspect.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 2017, made submissions that the petitioner was entitled to interest from the 60th day of making the application, seeking refund. Admittedly, the amount of refund has been paid to the petitioner after expiry of 60 days, however, the interest has not been ordered to be paid and therefore, the respondents may be directed to make payment of interest to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea, raised by the petitioner, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the applications, made by the petitioner, were deficient and therefore, it is after the deficiencies were rectified, the orders have been passed and the amount has been refunded to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of interest. Hence, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
8. The orders of refund in Civil Writ Petition Nos.13746/2022, 13962/2022 and 14201/2022 indicate that the applications, filed by the petitioner, were deficient and those deficiencies were later on removed by the petitioner. However, in Civil Writ Petition No.13747/2022, there was no deficiency in the refund application.
9. In the schedule, produced by learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition/s, it is indicated that in all the four cases, the amount of CGST, SGST and IGST has been refunded to the petitioner beyond 60 days, as envisaged by the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 2017, however, in absence of any order for grant of interest in terms of the said provision, no interest has been paid to the petitioner.
10. It is not in dispute that in three cases, there were deficiencies and the deficiencies were later on rectified by the petitioner. The provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 2017, inter-alia, provides that if any tax, ordered to be refunded to any applicant, is not refunded within 60 days from the date of receipt of application, the interest at such date, not exceeding 6%, shall be payable for the period of delay beyond 60 days.
11. The indications made in Section 56 of the Act of 2017, pertaining to 'the date of receipt of the application', can only be read as date of receipt of a 'complete application' i.e. in case, there are deficiencies, from the date the deficiencies are removed by the applicant.
12. As in the present case, there were deficiencies in three cases and in one case, there was no deficiency and the amount of CGST, SGST and IGST have been refunded to the petitioner beyond 60 days, the respondents are required to determine the actual delay and make payment of the amount of interest to the petitioner in terms of provisions of Section 56 of Act of 2017.
13. Consequently, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner, are disposed of.
14. The respondents are directed to make payment of amount of interest to the petitioner in terms of the provision of Section 56 of the Act
Interest on tax refund is payable if not refunded within 60 days, calculated from the date of a complete application.
The court affirmed the right to interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act for delays in tax refunds and established that such delays, due to administrative inaction, should not detrimentally affect t....
The court affirmed the mandatory obligation under Section 56 of the GST Act for authorities to grant interest on delayed refunds, emphasizing that such interest is compensatory and should not be deni....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the first application for refu....
The court establishes that tax authorities must issue refund orders within sixty days as mandated by statute, failing which, interest and damages may apply.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a dealer to receive interest on the refund amount as per the provisions of section 38 of the VAT Act, and the requirement for th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.