2025 (9) TMI 971 - HC - GST

Adjudicating Authority ordered to compute and grant interest on refunds per earlier ruling, with strict two-month and one-month timelines

HC remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to compute and grant interest on refunds in accordance with an earlier HC ruling that the petitioner ... Non-grant of interest to the Petitioner on refunds which have been paid to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- The matter may be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for computing the interest in terms of M/s G.S. Industries [2025 (5) TMI 2072 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'this Court is of the view that the Petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of interest for delay caused due to the deficiency memo not having been issued within the stipulated period, i.e., between 4th/9th July, 2019 and 29th November, 2019.' The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to compute the interest by applying the decision in GS Industries - Let the computation be completed within two months and the interest be released to the Petitioner within one month thereafter - Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether interest is payable on delayed refunds under Sections 54 and 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 where refunds were ordered but not paid within the statutory period. 2. Whether the higher rate of interest under the proviso to Section 56 (up to 9% per annum) applies where the refund claim is made pursuant to an order of an adjudicating or appellate authority that has attained finality, and how such higher rate interacts with the base rate (up to 6% per annum). 3. Whether failure to issue a deficiency memo within the period prescribed by Rule 90 of the CGST Rules disentitles the applicant from interest for the period of delay attributable to the Revenue. 4. Whether the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for computation of interest in light of the applicable legal principles and earlier decisions of the Court. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Interest payable on delayed refunds under Sections 54 and 56 (Legal framework) Legal framework: Sections 54 and 56 of the CGST Act govern refund claims and interest on delayed refunds. Section 54 prescribes time-limits and mechanism for refund applications; Section 56 mandates interest where refund is not paid within sixty days of a complete application, specifying rates not exceeding 6% in the main provision and up to 9% in the proviso where refund follows a final order of an adjudicating/appellate authority. Precedent treatment: The Court relied upon its prior exposition of the statutory scheme in an earlier decision which analyzed the interplay between the main provision and the proviso to Section 56. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that entitlement to interest is statutory and triggers where a refund ordered under Section 54(5) is not paid within 60 days from receipt of the application. The main provision and proviso operate conjunctively to provide differential rates based on the nature and timing of the application giving rise to the refund entitlement. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - statutory entitlement to interest arises post-60 days of a complete application; distinct rates apply as per the main provision and proviso. Obiter - none beyond explanatory observations. Conclusions: Interest is payable where refunds are not made within the statutory period; the determination of applicable rate depends on whether the refund application is filed pursuant to a final adjudicatory/appellate order. Issue 2 - Interaction between 6% and 9% rates; application where refund follows appellate/final orders Legal framework: Section 56 main clause (=6%) and proviso (=9%) - proviso applies where claim arises from an order passed by adjudicating/appellate authority or court that has attained finality and where a subsequent application is filed consequent to such order. Precedent treatment: The Court adopted and applied the earlier detailed analysis explaining that the proviso enhances interest only for the period commencing from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the application filed pursuant to appellate/adjudicatory final orders, and does not negate interest at 6% for earlier periods. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court explained the temporal operation: (a) interest at 6% runs from the date immediately after expiry of 60 days following the initial refund application; (b) if the initial claim is litigated and ultimately upheld, leading to an application filed pursuant to the appellate/final order, then interest at 9% runs from the date immediately after expiry of 60 days from that subsequent application; (c) the proviso supplements, rather than replaces, the main provision - thus both rates can apply sequentially for different periods. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the proviso confers an enhanced rate for the specific period after filing the post-finality application; the 6% liability for the earlier period remains payable where applicable. Obiter - illustrative explanations clarifying sequential application of rates. Conclusions: Both rates can be applicable for different time segments depending on when applications were filed and when finality was achieved; the enhanced 9% rate is not retrospective to the first application but applies from expiry of 60 days after the subsequent application filed pursuant to final orders. Issue 3 - Effect of non-issuance of deficiency memo within period under Rule 90 on interest entitlement Legal framework: Rule 90 CGST Rules prescribes timelines for issuance of deficiency memos and related processing of refund applications. Precedent treatment: The Court considered prior decisions which emphasize that delays attributable to the Revenue (such as failure to issue deficiency memos in time) cannot be used to deny interest to the claimant. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner's contention was that failure to issue a deficiency memo within 15 days under Rule 90 resulted in avoidable delay; the Department countered that deficiencies were genuine and remedied only upon submission and acknowledgement. The Court balanced both aspects, holding that the petitioner must receive benefit of interest for the period attributable to Revenue's failure to issue the deficiency memo within the stipulated time, but also noting that delay by the applicant in responding to the memo (74 days in the facts) affects computation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - delay caused by the Revenue in issuing deficiency memos within prescribed period warrants granting interest for that period; however, applicant's own delays in furnishing documents must be accounted for in the interest computation. Obiter - illustrative application to factual timeline in the present matter. Conclusions: Interest cannot be denied for periods of delay owing to the Revenue's non-compliance with Rule 90 timelines; concurrent delays by the applicant must be excluded from interest computation. Issue 4 - Remand for computation and directions on timeline Legal framework: Judicial power to remit matters for computation/reconsideration where questions of calculation and fact require administrative determination in accordance with judicial principles. Precedent treatment: The Court followed its prior treatment in analogous matters by directing remand to the adjudicating authority for computation in accordance with the established legal framework set out in its earlier decision. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the applicable principles regarding the sequential application of 6% and 9% interest, and the mixed causal delays (Revenue's failure to issue deficiency memo timely and petitioner's delayed response), the Court found remand appropriate to permit the adjudicating authority to apply the legal principles to the specific timelines and compute interest accordingly. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where computation involves application of established legal principles to factual timelines (including distinguishing periods attributable to Revenue and applicant), matter should be remitted for calculation; Obiter - limited procedural directions on time-limits for completion. Conclusions: The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to compute interest applying the Court's interpretation (sequential 6%/9% application, exclusion of applicant-caused delay), with the computation to be completed within two months and interest released within one month thereafter. Cross-References and Practical Application 1. Apply Section 56 main clause for periods following 60 days from the receipt of the first complete refund application; if a subsequent application is filed pursuant to a final adjudicatory/appellate order, apply the proviso at 9% for the period commencing after 60 days from that subsequent application. 2. Exclude periods of applicant-caused delay (e.g., time taken to respond to deficiency memos) from interest computation; include periods attributable to the Revenue's failure to act within prescribed timelines (e.g., delayed issuance of deficiency memo under Rule 90). 3. Remand for factual computation is appropriate where mixed causation affects the calculation of interest and established legal principles require application to the record; such remand should be time-bound as directed by the Court.