Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Paradeep Phosphates Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Goods and Services Tax (Appeals) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 for relief. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court to examine the dispute regarding authority's denial of interest. (Para 3) |
| 3. insufficient grounds for denying interest on igst refund. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. assessment of igst payment under protest deemed unconstitutional. (Para 6) |
| 5. entitlement to interest from date of igst payment till refund. (Para 7) |
| 6. dismissal of judgements with directions to pay interest. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
1. Non-consideration of claim for interest on the amount refunded to the petitioner from the date of deposit till date of payment is the subject matter in the present writ petition.
1.1. The petitioner by filing this writ petition craves to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for grant of following relief(s):
“Under the aforesaid circumstances it is prayed therefore that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to:
(a) Admit the writ application;
(b) Issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties as to why the Order dated 15.01.2024 vide Annexure-10 rejecting the appeal shall not be quashed being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principle o
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 interest would be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute and any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable g....
Appellant entitled to interest on delayed refund as per Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, which specifically governs the timing and rate of interest applicable.
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....
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
