Part-72-One Pager Snapshot to the Latest Cases

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
56

Provisions of
Section 56
mandatory in
nature and
entitles
assessee to
get interest on
delayed
refund.

Panji Engineering (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of India
[2023] 153 taxmann.com
727 (Gujarat)

Petitioner was informed by the authorized person of the Custom Department that 'Red Flag5 was tagged against the name of the petitioner
and therefore refund and duty drawback was not issued. The refunds were subsequently received. The petitioner alleged that he was entitled
to get interest in view of the provisions of Section 56, since refund was not sanctioned within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application.
It was also submitted that wordings of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 56 of CGST Act, 2017 are same and thus
relied upon Ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court for Section 11BB of Central Excise Act and relied upon ruling Of Apex Court in the matter of Ranbaxi
Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T 3 (S.C).
High Court held that provisions of Section 56 are clear and unambiguous and are mandatory provision. The said provision entitles
petitioner to claim interest on delayed refunds. However, the respondent authority has not granted interest on the delayed refunds, which
according to the Court, was against the provisions of Section 56. Petitioner was thus held entitled to interest on delayed refund.

2

Section
129

Matter
remanded
back as no
finding brought
on record to
disbelieve the
contention of
petitioner of eway bill being
expired due to
driver falling ill

[2023] 153 taxmann.com
726 (Allahabad) Rateria
Laminators (P.) Ltd. v.
Additional Commissioner
Grade 2

The petitioner transited goods from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal and goods were accompanied by requisite documents. Eway bills were
valid upto 12.3.2023 whereas goods were intercepted on 14.3.2023. Thereafter proceedings were initiated only the ground that the goods
were transited after expiry of the Eway bills. No other discrepancy was found either in quality, quantity or goods. On the pointed query by
High Court, counsel of revenue failed to point out any finding recorded by any of the authorities about evasion of payment of tax. He only
submitted that the intention of the petitioner was not clear as he transited the goods after expiry of the Eway bills.
High Court from a perusal of the order, observed that the reply submitted by the petitioner was rejected by only saying that the reply
was not found to be acceptable. No other reason was assigned for rejecting the claim of petitioner. Also no reason was assigned
by any of the authorities in the impugned orders for disbelieving the contention of petitioner of break-down of vehicle. Therefore,
impugned were quashed and matter was remitted back.
Cases Referred- Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. State of U.P. (2022 (61) GSTL 385 (All.), Assistant Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam
Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. (2022 (57) GSTL 97 (SC)

3

Section
54

Limitation
period stops
running once
Refund
application
filed with
required
documents,
although
officer may
require further
documents to
verify claim

National Internet
Exchange of India v.
Union of India [2023] 153
taxmann.com 709 (Delhi)

High Court observed that there was no dispute that petitioner’s application for refund dated 30.01.2019 was accompanied by the documents
as prescribed under Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules. However, the petitioner’s application was not processed as the proper officer had noticed
certain discrepancies and required certain clarifications and Deficiency memo was issued on dated 11.11.2019 setting out the description of
the deficiencies. It was further observed that the proper officer also required petitioner to provide certain documents in order to verify its
claims for refund and out of which it was also apparent that some of the documents demanded were not relevant as the petitioner’s claim
was for refund of IGST and not unutilised ITC.
High Court, thus held that nature of the deficiencies as set out in deficiency memo indicated that application filed by petitioner was
not incomplete in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules, therefore application for refund filed by the petitioner on 31.10.2019 could not
be ignored or disregarded. It was clear that the petitioner had complied with the said requirement inasmuch as it had filed an application for
refund on 31.10.2019 in the “form and manner” as prescribed in the CGST Act and the CGST Rules. Thus, in terms of Section 54(1) of the
CGST Act, the period of limitation would stop running notwithstanding that the proper officer required further documents or
material to satisfy himself that the refund claimed was due to the petitioner.
Cases Referred- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India[2023] 151 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi)

4

Section
107

Delay in Filing
of Appeal
condoned and
directed to be
disposed on
merits

Tvl. Samikkannu Senthil
Kumar
V. Appellate Deputy
Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
[2023] 153 taxmann.com
698 (Madras)

The High Court observed that order passed by the Appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner cannot be questioned as the
appeal had been filed belatedly but at the same time, it was also evident that the Assessment order was hosted on the website on 05.07.2022
but petitioner was unaware of the same. Considering the above and to balance interest of parties, Court condoned the delay in filing
the appeal by the directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law