Ankush Auto Deals VS Commissioner Of DGST

On behalf of the petitioner, it was conveyed that their concerns have been partially addressed, with the principal amount for the refund already being disbursed. The remaining issue pertains to the payment of statutory interest, which according to the petitioner’s counsel, still requires resolution. This stance was corroborated by the respondents’ counsel as well.

Furthermore, reference was made to an order dated 22.03.2022 issued by the Goods and Service Tax Officer (GSTO), Ward-72, Department of Trade & Taxes.

On the previous date, May 12, 2022, it was noted that the petitioner’s concerns had seen partial resolution, with the principal refund amount already disbursed. Remaining unresolved was the issue of statutory interest, as acknowledged by both the petitioner’s counsel and the respondents. Documentation provided included an order from the Goods and Service Tax Officer dated March 22, 2022, outlining the refund calculations: the taxpayer claimed Rs. 25,29,944/-, with Rs. 14,22,482/- already refunded and Rs. 11,07,462/- pending further allowance.

The officer had not addressed the petitioner’s demand for statutory interest, prompting the court’s initial view that such interest should indeed be paid. Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, representing the respondents, requested a brief adjournment to present the respondent’s position on this matter to the court.

On the previous date, 12.05.2022, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the petitioner’s main concern, the refund of the principal amount, has been partially resolved with the remittance of the principal amount. However, the payment of statutory interest remains outstanding, which both the petitioner’s and respondent’s counsels acknowledged. The court reviewed an order from the Goods and Service Tax Officer dated 22.03.2022, which detailed the refund calculations relevant to the petitioner. Despite partial refund, the officer did not address the issue of statutory interest, prompting the court to lean towards the petitioner’s right to receive such interest. Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, representing the respondents, requested time to address the court on this matter, leading to the scheduling of a further hearing on 21.07.2022.

Additionally, Mr. Kumar noted that a counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, though it had not yet been formally entered into the record. The counter-affidavit, submitted on 20.07.2022, cited delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic as the primary reason for withholding statutory interest from the petitioner’s refund claim.

On the previous date, 12.05.2022, discussions in court revealed the following: The petitioner’s counsel reported that while the principal refund amount had been partially settled, the issue of statutory interest remained unresolved, a stance affirmed by the respondents’ counsel. The court noted the order from the Goods and Service Tax Officer dated 22.03.2022, outlining the refund breakdown, indicating a remaining amount owed to the petitioner. The officer’s failure to address the statutory interest payment was noted, prompting the court to consider it necessary. Respondents’ counsel requested time to address this concern, leading to the matter being scheduled for 21.07.2022. The Registry was instructed to upload relevant documents for the case file. Additionally, it was mentioned that a counter-affidavit had been filed by the respondents on 20.07.2022, citing delays due to Covid-19 as grounds for denying statutory interest. Petitioner’s counsel countered this, arguing that the cited legal precedents were not applicable, highlighting the phased refund payments made since the petitioner’s application in July 2021.

On the previous date, May 12, 2022, the court proceedings reflected several key points: The petitioner’s counsel reported partial resolution of their grievance, with the principal refund amount already disbursed. The remaining issue concerns the payment of statutory interest, an aspect acknowledged by both parties. Supporting documents, including an order from the Goods and Service Tax Officer dated March 22, 2022, detailing refund calculations, were presented. However, statutory interest, essential to the petitioner’s claim, had not been addressed by the concerned officer. Consequently, the court prima facie agreed that statutory interest should be granted.

Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, representing the respondents, sought additional time to address this matter, leading to the adjournment of proceedings to July 21, 2022. For documentation purposes, the Registry was instructed to scan and upload relevant payment orders and the aforementioned March 22, 2022 order into the case file.

Mr. Kumar confirmed the filing of a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents on July 20, 2022, although a physical copy was provided instead of it being officially on record. The affidavit cited delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic as grounds for denying statutory interest, despite the principal refund being processed and partially disbursed.

The respondents relied on precedents from the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, arguing that pandemic-related delays extended the timeline for processing refund claims. In contrast, Mr. Vasdev Lalwani, representing the petitioner, contested the applicability of these precedents, emphasizing that the petitioner’s refund application, filed in July 2021, was processed in stages, with two tranches of refund amounts disbursed in January and March 2022. Mr. Lalwani asserted that during the processing phases, statutory interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should have been granted accordingly.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: