Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Bansal International, engaged in export of
goods, filed a refund application dated 06.02.2020 claiming Input Tax Credit
(ITC) refund for exports made without payment of tax. The refund was partially
rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on 10.11.2020.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, and the Appellate
Authority allowed the refund claim, directing reprocessing. Subsequently, the
refund was granted but interest on delayed refund was denied.
The petitioner then filed a claim for interest amounting to
₹13,12,761/-, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.07.2023. The
present writ petition challenges denial of interest on delayed refund.
Issues Involved
- Whether
interest under Section 56 of the CGST/DGST Act is payable:
- From
60 days after the initial refund application, or
- From
60 days after the subsequent application filed pursuant to appellate
order
- Whether denial of interest is justified when refund is granted after appellate proceedings.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
petitioner contended that interest should be calculated from the date
immediately after 60 days of the original refund application, not from
the subsequent application.
- It
was argued that appellate proceedings are a continuation of original
proceedings.
- The
petitioner emphasized that delay caused due to wrongful rejection by
authorities cannot defeat the statutory right to interest.
- Section 56 must be interpreted to ensure compensation for wrongful retention of funds.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
Revenue argued that interest is payable only as per strict statutory
interpretation.
- It
was contended that:
- A fresh
application is required after appellate order, and
- Interest
should run only after 60 days from such subsequent application.
- Reliance was placed on Rule 89(2) of CGST Rules and proviso to Section 56.
Court Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and held:
- Interest
under Section 56 is payable from the date immediately after expiry of
60 days from the initial refund application, provided it was complete
in all respects.
- The
Court rejected the Revenue’s interpretation that interest begins only
after a fresh application post-appeal.
- It
clarified that:
- Appellate
proceedings are a continuation of original proceedings.
- A
taxpayer’s right to interest cannot be defeated due to erroneous
rejection by authorities.
- The impugned order denying interest was set aside, and authorities were directed to process the interest claim accordingly.
Important Clarification by Court
- Section
56 operates in two parts:
- 6%
Interest → From 60 days after original application
- 9%
Interest (Proviso) → From 60 days after application filed
post-final appellate order
- The
proviso does not override the main provision but only enhances
interest for delayed compliance after final adjudication.
- Filing of a second application is merely procedural and does not reset limitation or interest calculation.
Sections Involved
- Section
54 – Refund of Tax
- Section
56 – Interest on Delayed Refund
- Section
107 – Appeals to Appellate Authority
- Section
112 & 117 – Appellate Remedies
- Rule 89 & Rule 90 – CGST Rules, 2017
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/VIB21112023CW116292023_110115.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment