Apar Industries Limited VS Union Of India

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India originally seeks a refund of Rs.52.97 Crores along with interest thereon under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, the Act, and interest on delayed refund of Rs.1.90 Crores already granted to the Petitioner. These refunds arose from tax payments on exported goods under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). During the pendency of this Petition, Rs.52.52 Crores has been refunded under the Act read with IGST Act. The Petitioner’s grievance now is limited to nonpayment of interest on the amount of Rs.52.52 Crores of refund already made.

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India originally seeks a refund of Rs.52.97 Crores along with interest thereon under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act (the Act). Besides seeking an interest on delayed refund of Rs.1.90 Crores which was already granted to the Petitioner. These refunds arose on account of tax paid in respect of exported goods under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). During the pendency of this Petition, an amount of Rs.52.52 Crores has already been refunded under the Act read with IGST Act. Thus, the Petitioner’s grievance now is limited to nonpayment of interest on the amount of Rs.52.52 Crores of refund already granted to it as well as the refund of the balance amount of Rs.2.35 Crores together with interest thereon. It is the Petitioner’s case that they are not only entitled to refund of tax paid but also interest thereon as provided under Section 56 of the Act from the expiry of 60 days of filing of the shipping bills in which the refund is claimed.

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India originally seeks a refund of Rs.52.97 Crores along with interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act. Additionally, it requests interest on a delayed refund of Rs.1.90 Crores already granted to the Petitioner. These refunds stem from tax payments on exported goods under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). During the proceedings, Rs.52.52 Crores has already been refunded under the Act and IGST Act. The Petitioner now contends that interest is owed on the refunded amount and seeks the remaining Rs.2.35 Crores with interest.

The Respondents, however, argue, as stated in Mr. Balmukund Agarwal’s affidavit dated 15th October, 2018, that an invoice mismatch/error caused the delay in refunding Rs.52.52 Crores. Therefore, they assert that no interest is payable by the Revenue for this delay, attributing it to the Petitioner’s error.

Mr. Shah, representing the Petitioner, disputes the existence of any invoice mismatch, citing the Madras Commissionerate’s FAQ dated 23rd February, 2018, which addressed errors related to Invoice mis-match (SB005).

interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act. The petitioner also claims interest on a delayed refund of Rs.1.90 Crores already granted. These refunds stem from taxes paid on exported goods under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). During the proceedings, Rs.52.52 Crores has been refunded under the Act and IGST Act.

The petitioner’s current grievance focuses on the non-payment of interest on the refunded Rs.52.52 Crores and the outstanding Rs.2.35 Crores, along with interest. They argue entitlement to both the refund and interest as per Section 56 of the Act, starting from 60 days after filing shipping bills for the refund claim.

The respondents counter that an invoice mismatch/error has delayed the refund of Rs.52.52 Crores, contending that no interest is payable by the Revenue for this delay, attributing it to the petitioner’s error. The petitioner disputes any such invoice mismatch, referencing FAQs and Circulars from the Madras Commissionerate and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs which direct refunds despite invoice mismatches.

Ultimately, the respondents affirm under oath that an invoice mismatch indeed exists, causing the delay in refund processing.

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a refund of Rs.52.97 Crores plus interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act. Additionally, it requests interest on a delayed refund of Rs.1.90 Crores already granted. These refunds pertain to taxes paid on exported goods under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). During the proceedings, Rs.52.52 Crores has been refunded, leaving the grievance focused on the remaining Rs.2.35 Crores and the interest owed on the refunded amount.

The Petitioner contends that they are entitled to both the tax refund and interest, starting from 60 days after filing the shipping bills. The Respondents, however, argue in an affidavit that a mismatch/error in invoices caused the delay in refunding the Rs.52.52 Crores, and therefore, no interest is payable due to the fault lying with the Petitioner.

The Petitioner disputes the existence of any invoice mismatch, referencing FAQs and Circulars issued by authorities that direct refunds despite invoice mismatches. They argue that interest should thus be granted as sought.

The court notes the Respondents’ statement under oath regarding the invoice mismatch and the resulting delay, countered by the Petitioner’s position and the referenced Circulars/FAQs that address refunding despite such mismatches but do not specify interest payment during such periods.

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India originally seeks a refund of Rs.52.97 Crores along with interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act. The petitioner additionally seeks interest on a delayed refund of Rs.1.90 Crores already granted. These refunds relate to tax paid on exported goods under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). During the proceedings, Rs.52.52 Crores has been refunded under the Act and IGST Act. The petitioner now disputes the non-payment of interest on this refunded amount and seeks the balance refund of Rs.2.35 Crores with interest.

The respondent argues, per an affidavit, that a mismatch/error in invoices caused the delay in refunding Rs.52.52 Crores, contending that no interest is payable due to the petitioner’s error. The petitioner disputes the existence of any invoice mismatch, citing relevant FAQs and circulars directing refund despite such errors, which they argue supports their claim for interest under Section 56.

The court finds conflicting claims regarding the invoice mismatch and delays in refund. It directs the petitioner to file a representation with the adjudicating authority to resolve these factual disputes and determine liability for the delay. Given concerns over impartiality, the court recommends assigning a different Assistant Commissioner of Customs to handle the case, emphasizing the need for justice to be both done and seen to be done.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: