2023 (2) TMI 536 - HC - GST

Petitioner awarded 6% interest on wrongfully encashed bank guarantees worth Rs.4.73 crore

Karnataka HC allowed petitioner's claim for interest on wrongfully encashed bank guarantees. The court held that petitioner was illegally deprived of ... Rejection of claim of the petitioner of payment of interest from the date of encashment of bank guarantees i.e., 29.03.2019 till grant of refund on 05.01.2022 - It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite submitting a detailed reply dated 14.07.2022 and producing all relevant documents, the 3rd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order denying refund of interest in favour of the petitioner - Rate of interest to be awarded in favour of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The undisputed material on record discloses that the petitioner has been wrongly and without any fault on its part been deprived of the use, utilisation and benefit of the amount of Rs.4,73,26,512/- during the period from 29.03.2019 up to 05.01.2022, during which period, the respondents illegally withheld and retained the said amount as declared by the Bombay High Court. Under these circumstances also, by applying the principles of restitution and by way of compensation for the loss caused to the petitioner on account of illegal and wrongful deprivation of the aforesaid amount by the respondents, the petitioner would be entitled to interest for the aforesaid period and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground also. The 3rd respondent has committed an error in recording an erroneous finding that the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,73,26,512/- encashed under the bank guarantees was available with the petitioner during the aforesaid period from 29.03.2019 till 05.01.2022; this finding recorded by the 3rd respondent in the impugned order is clearly and factually incorrect and contrary to the material on record, which indicates that pursuant to encashment of the 8 bank guarantees, the respondents had appropriated the said amount and prevented the petitioner of its use and benefit till the same was actually refunded only on 05.01.2022 and as such, even this finding recorded by the 3rd respondent in the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record clearly indicate that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the interest refund claim of the petitioner is contrary to law and facts and the same deserves to be quashed. Rate of interest to be awarded in favour of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The interest of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to pay interest in favour of the petitioner on the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,73,26,512/- at the rate of 6% p.a. for the period from 29.03.2019 when the bank guarantees were illegally encashed by the respondents up to 05.01.2022 when the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,73,26,512/- was refunded back to the petitioner. Petition allowed in part. Issues involved:Petitioner's claim for interest on bank guarantees encashment and subsequent refund.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought the quashing of an order rejecting their claim for interest on bank guarantees encashment until refund, based on a Bombay High Court judgment. The petitioner had filed statutory appeals against GST authorities' orders and the bank guarantees were encashed illegally. The Bombay High Court directed the refund of the encashed sum with applicable interest, which became conclusive. The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings, leading to a refund application and subsequent rejection of interest claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this rejection in the present petition, citing various judgments in support.2. The High Court analyzed the impugned order and found errors in rejecting the interest claim. The Bombay High Court had clearly directed the refund of the encashed amount with applicable statutory interest, which the 3rd respondent failed to acknowledge. The 3rd respondent's reasoning that statutory provisions did not apply to grant interest was deemed erroneous and set aside.3. The High Court further noted that the 3rd respondent's decision contradicted the Bombay High Court's judgment, which explicitly mentioned the petitioner's entitlement to interest. The 3rd respondent's reliance on specific sections of the GST Act to deny interest was deemed unfounded, as the petitioner's right to interest was established by the Bombay High Court's order.4. Additionally, the High Court highlighted that the petitioner was deprived of the use of the encashed amount from the date of encashment until the refund, justifying the award of interest as compensation. The 3rd respondent's factual error in assuming the amount was available to the petitioner during this period was refuted, further supporting the petitioner's claim for interest.5. Ultimately, the High Court partially allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to pay interest at 6% p.a. on the encashed sum for the relevant period. The judgment emphasized the petitioner's rightful entitlement to interest based on legal principles and the Bombay High Court's directions.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the petitioner's claim for interest on bank guarantees encashment and subsequent refund, highlighting the errors in the 3rd respondent's decision and affirming the petitioner's right to interest as established by the Bombay High Court's order.