Vodafone Idea Limited VS Union Of India

The summary pertains to a legal case where Mr. Shroff, representing the petitioner, mentions the filing of an additional affidavit by Suyog Nawal on October 17, 2022. This affidavit asserts that respondent no. 3 has approved a refund amounting to Rs. 1,02,74,14,843 for the period between April 2019 and September 2019. However, Mr. Shroff points out a crucial issue: despite the technical approval of the refund, respondent no. 3 has not included interest on this amount.

Mr. Mishra, speaking on behalf of Ms. Sumity Garg, Dy. Commissioner of CGST & CEX, Mumbai Central Division VIII, who is present in court, explains that the department did not grant interest to the petitioner due to specific reasons.

In a legal context, Mr. Shroff highlighted the submission of an additional affidavit by Suyog Nawal on October 17, 2022, stating that Respondent No. 3 had approved a refund amounting to Rs. 1,02,74,14,843 for the period from April 2019 to September 2019. However, Mr. Shroff pointed out that while the refund claim itself had been processed, the issue raised was that interest on this refunded amount had not been granted by Respondent No. 3.

Mr. Mishra, speaking on behalf of Ms. Sumity Garg, Dy. Commissioner of CGST & CEX, Mumbai Central Division VIII, who was present in court, countered that the interest could not be provided to the petitioner because the department had not received the necessary interest calculations or claim from them. Mr. Shroff argued against this stance, deeming it unreasonable for the respondents to withhold interest simply because the petitioner hadn’t submitted calculations, as any claim would naturally undergo scrutiny before being approved.

Mr. Mishra further clarified, on Ms. Garg’s behalf, that upon receiving the application from the petitioner within a week, the interest amount would be promptly paid. He assured that if there were any technical difficulties preventing the online filing of the application, the petitioner could submit a physical application to Ms. Garg, and it would be processed without delay.

Mr. Shroff agreed to file the application with the necessary calculations by October 21, 2022. The court accepted Mr. Mishra’s commitment that the interest amount would be processed within one week of receiving the application, viewing it as a formal undertaking to the court.

Mr. Shroff presented an additional affidavit on October 17, 2022, stating that respondent no.3 had sanctioned a refund of Rs.1,02,74,14,843/- for the period from April 2019 to September 2019. However, Mr. Shroff pointed out that the issue was that interest had not been granted on this refund amount, which he deemed a legitimate concern.

Mr. Mishra, speaking on behalf of Ms. Sumity Garg, Dy. Commissioner of CGST & CEX, Mumbai Central Division VIII, explained that the department had not processed interest on the refund because they had not received proper interest calculations or a claim from the petitioner. Mr. Shroff contested this stance, arguing that the department should verify the correctness of the petitioner’s claim rather than using the lack of information as an excuse to deny interest.

Mr. Mishra then assured the court that upon receiving the necessary application with calculations by October 21, 2022, the department would process the interest payment within one week. He further stated that if the petitioner faced any technical issues with online filing, they could submit a physical application to Ms. Garg, and it would be promptly processed.

Regarding the refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- for the period from October 2020 to December 2020, Mr. Mishra acknowledged that the department had initially rejected the petitioner’s refund application through an order dated July 29, 2022. However, he informed the court that the department had reviewed this decision and had filed an appeal under sub-Section (2) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, indicating that they did not uphold their own earlier decision.

Consequently, Mr. Mishra confirmed that the petitioner was entitled to the refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- along with any applicable interest. He assured the court that upon receipt of an application from the petitioner, this amount would be paid within one week. The court accepted Mr. Mishra’s statement as an undertaking.

In summary, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s entitlement to both refund amounts, directing the department to process the refund with interest upon receiving the requisite documentation from the petitioner by the specified deadline.

In a detailed court proceeding summarized by Mr. Shroff, it was highlighted that an additional affidavit dated October 17, 2022, affirmed by Suyog Nawal, has been submitted. This affidavit asserts that respondent no. 3 has approved a refund amounting to Rs. 1,02,74,14,843 for the period from April 2019 to September 2019. However, Mr. Shroff pointed out that while the refund has been calculated correctly by the petitioner, interest on this refunded amount has not been granted by respondent no. 3.

Mr. Mishra, representing Ms. Sumity Garg from the CGST & CEX, Mumbai Central Division VIII, stated that the reason interest was not granted was due to the department not receiving interest calculations or claims from the petitioner. Mr. Shroff contested this explanation, calling it baseless, as he argued that the department should verify the correctness of any claim before granting it, regardless of formal applications.

Further, Mr. Mishra assured the court that upon receiving the necessary application from the petitioner, the interest amount would be processed and paid within one week. He also allowed for a physical application if there were any technical issues with the online filing. Mr. Shroff committed to submitting the application with calculations by October 21, 2022, and the court accepted Mr. Mishra’s undertaking to process the payment promptly upon receipt of the application.

Regarding the refund claim of Rs. 88,46,01,539 for the period from October 2020 to December 2020, which was initially rejected by respondent no. 3 in an order dated July 29, 2022, Mr. Mishra informed the court that the department had reviewed this decision and had filed an appeal against it. He acknowledged that the department’s stance implied that the original rejection was incorrect, thereby entitling the petitioner to the refund amount along with any accrued interest. Mr. Mishra assured that this amount would also be processed within one week upon application, although Mr. Shroff argued that no new application should be necessary since the department had already acknowledged its error.

The court, by mutual agreement, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated July 29, 2022. Consequently, the petition was disposed of. Mr. Mishra informed the court that the respondents were considering challenging a previous order and judgment dated July 4, 2022, from another writ petition.

Overall, the proceedings involved detailed discussions on refund claims, interest payments, administrative decisions, and legal procedures, ultimately resulting in certain orders being overturned and commitments made by the respondent to expedite payments upon re-application by the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: