Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, JAYANT BANERJI, JJ.
M/s Alok Traders - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Commercial Taxes and Others - Respondents
Writ Tax No. 419 of 2022 With Writ Tax No. 424 of 2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022
Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Section 129(3), 129, 107, 56, 54, 54(1) - CGST/UPGST Rules - Rules 89 - Refund of tax - Interest on delayed refunds - Application for refund of tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount - It is well settled that “construction which permits one to take advantage of one's own wrong or to impair one's own objections under a Statute should be disregarded. The interpretation should as far as possible be beneficial in the sense that it should suppress the mischief and advance the remedy without doing violence to the language” (Para 27).
Findings of the Court :
It is well settled that “construction which permits one to take advantage of one's own wrong or to impair one's own objections under a Statute should be disregarded - Interpretation should as far as possible be beneficial in sense that it should suppress mischief and advance remedy without doing violence to language - Therefore, applying aforesaid settled principles, respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong so as to deny payment of interest to petitioner on delayed refund.
Result : Writ petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Personal affidavit of respondent no.1 dated 25.04.2022 has been filed today, which is taken on record.
3. The aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed praying for the following reliefs:-
| Reliefs as prayed in Writ-Tax No.419 of 2022 | Reliefs as prayed in Writ-Tax No.424 of 2022 |
| (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of Rs.4,70,400/- deposited in the form of Draft under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the petitioner along with interest under section 56 in compliance of the appellate order dated 30.06.2018 passed in Appeal No. 10 for the assessment Year 2017-18;
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent No. 3 to provide the temporary ID and password on the official website so as to enable the petitioner to file the ONLINE application required under Rule 89 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017;
(c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(d) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner. | (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of Rs.5,60,000/- deposited in the form of Draft under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the petitioner along with interest under section 56 in compliance of the appellate order dated 29.06.2018 passed in Appeal No. 14 for the assessment Year 2017-18;
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent No. 3 to provide the temporary ID and password on the official website so as to enable the petitioner to file the ONLINE application required under Rule 89 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017;
(c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(d) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner. |
4. Since facts and issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar and inter-parties, therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, both the writ petitions are being heard together and facts of Writ-Tax No.419 of 2022 are being noted.
Writ-Tax No.419 of 2022
5. The petitioner is a registered dealer dealing in tobaco. His place of business is at Vileshwar Road, Near Talab, Post-Kunjrao, District-Anand (Gujarat). While certain goods sold by him were being transported through vehicle bearing registration No.GJ06/AX/7576, it was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad Unit-5, State Tax, Jhansi and an order dated 30.12.2017 under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2017) was passed demanding tax of Rs.2,35,200/- and penalty of equal amount, total Rs.4,70,400/-, for release of goods. Although the petitioner is a registered dealer and all particulars relating to him were well mentioned in the accompanying invoice and other documents, yet the aforesaid Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad Unit created at its own a temporary ID and released the goods on deposit of the aforesaid demanded amount by the petitioner by an account payee bank draft.
6. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2017 under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 before the appel
Point of Law : It is well settled that “construction which permits one to take advantage of one's own wrong or to impair one's own objections under a Statute should be disregarded. The interpretation....
The court emphasized the involuntary nature of the deposit, the absence of an adjudication of liability, and the non-compliance with the prescribed procedure under the CGST Rules, leading to the allo....
The rejection of refund claims without providing an opportunity of being heard was a violation of the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 92 of the CGST Rules and the principles of natural justice, rende....
In tax matters, entitlement to interest on delayed refunds, including on interest accrued, is affirmed, highlighting the principle that overdue amounts accrue additional interest.
State authorities are mandatorily required to pay interest on delayed tax refunds at the prescribed rate once the statutory limit for processing passes. Procedural failures in notification or record-....
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
