2025 (10) TMI 103 - HC - GST

Delayed GST refund due to technical glitch obligates interest under section 56; authorities must pay interest within 12 weeks

Vineet Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union Of India & Ors.

HC allowed the petition, holding that delayed refund resulted from a technical glitch and not any fault of the applicant. The court found the refund ... Entitlement to interest on the delayed payment of refund to the petitioner - denial on the ground of finding fault of the petitioner in filing the 05 Shipping Bills and errors were also found while filing GSTR - Technical glitch in the system - The GSTN Integration status report of ICES System was showing the response code as SB000 which was normally a success code in IGST integration and no window was provided to rectify the error code SB000 at Hazira Port. HELD THAT:- In view of the averments made on oath on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is clear that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for submitting the Shipping Bills but there was a technical glitch in the system which has resulted into delayed payment of refund as the Commissioner was required to direct for manual processing to issue the refund after filing of this petition. The provision of section 56 of the GST Act clearly provides that when the tax payer is not granted the refund as per the provision of section 54(5) of the GST Act within 60 days from the date of receipt of the refund application, which in the facts of the case is the date of filing of the Shipping Bills, interest is required to be paid to the tax payer-assessee. Provision of section 56 of the GST Act is a mandatory provision and the interest which is required to be paid under section 56 is compensatory in nature for delayed payment of refund which otherwise is not in dispute. Therefore, the respondents are required to pay the interest as per the provision of section 56 of the GST Act on the delayed payment of refund. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. Union of India [2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] in context of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is peri materia to section 56 of the GST Act has observed that 'the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable.' This Court also in case of Panji Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India [2023 (7) TMI 533 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] following the aforesaid decision has directed the respondent-authority to grant interest on the delayed refund as per the provisions of law. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to grant the interest on the delayed refund to the petitioners during pendency of this petition in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order - petition allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether interest under section 56 of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is payable where IGST refund due on export was delayed due to a technical glitch in the automated ICES-GSTN integration system. 2. Whether the respondent-authority can deny interest under section 56 by alleging fault on the exporter in filing Shipping Bills/GST returns without producing material evidence of such fault. 3. Whether manual processing of IGST refund after departmental inaction satisfies the requirement for payment of interest for the period of delay. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Applicability of section 56 GST Act where refund delayed by technical glitch Legal framework: Section 56 prescribes payment of interest on delayed refunds where tax ordered to be refunded under section 54(5) is not refunded within sixty days from date of receipt of the refund application; rate specified by notification; interest is compensatory in nature. Explanation and proviso for refunds following appellate/court orders set out extended rate provision. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on the principle in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (interpreting section 11BB of Central Excise Act, which is pari materia) that interest becomes payable on expiry of statutory period from receipt of application if refund is not made, and the explanation does not postpone commencement of interest. The Court also referred to a High Court decision following the same principle directing interest on delayed refunds. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated section 56 as mandatory and compensatory. The date of receipt of application was identified as the date of filing of Shipping Bills in the facts. A technical glitch in the automated ICES-GSTN integration (response code SB000 and transmission showing eligible scroll amount as zero) caused non-processing of the automated refund. Since the delay was attributable to system failure and not to any proven fault of the taxpayer, the statutorily mandated interest is triggered by non-refund beyond sixty days. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - section 56 mandates interest for delayed refund where delay is not attributable to proven fault of the applicant; technical/system failure causing delay does not absolve department from liability to pay interest. Obiter - observations about the compensatory nature of interest and description of automated refund mechanism provide contextual support but are ancillary to the holding. Conclusion: The Court concluded that interest under section 56 is payable for the delayed IGST refund caused by the technical glitch and ordered payment of interest in accordance with law. Issue 2 - Sufficiency of departmental allegation of taxpayer fault without material evidence Legal framework: Burden on department to justify denial of statutory interest by demonstrating applicant's inaccuracy in filings or other valid statutory exceptions; statutory scheme conditions refund on matching Shipping Bill and GST return data but denial of interest requires demonstrable cause. Precedent Treatment: Followed the principle that the department must show material to establish taxpayer's fault when relying on it to deny statutory relief; the Court applied established interpretations of refund provisions (including analogy to Ranbaxy and High Court precedent) to insist on material proof before denying interest. Interpretation and reasoning: The department alleged errors in Shipping Bills and GSTR filings but produced no material on record to show what mistakes were committed. The affidavit of respondents conceded that other shipments of the petitioner were refunded normally and that the immediate cause was a technical glitch in data transmission from GSTN to ICES. The Court held that mere allegation without evidence is insufficient to evade statutory obligation to pay interest where delay is otherwise unexplained or shown to be systemic. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - denial of interest cannot rest on unsubstantiated allegations of taxpayer fault; the department must demonstrate specific errors causing the delay. Obiter - procedural remarks on the responsibilities of exporters to file accurately and the automated nature of the system while relevant are not determinative absent proof. Conclusion: The Court found no material basis for the departmental allegation of taxpayer fault and held that such unsupported contention does not justify withholding interest under section 56. Issue 3 - Effect of manual processing after judicial intervention on entitlement to interest Legal framework: Interest under section 56 accrues from the expiry of sixty days from receipt of refund application until date of actual refund; subsequent administrative action (including manual processing) does not negate entitlement to interest for the period of delay. Precedent Treatment: Reliance on Ranbaxy (interest accrues upon expiry of statutory period regardless of subsequent processes) and state High Court precedent applying the same principle to GST refund interest. Interpretation and reasoning: Manual processing approval by the Principal Commissioner, effected after court intervention, remedied the non-refund but did not cure past delay. The Court noted the Commissioner approved manual processing because online processing attempts had failed; this administrative step validated that the delay was not attributable to the exporter and affirmed the necessity to compensate for the delay via interest. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - administrative remediation (manual refund) after delay does not extinguish statutory obligation to pay interest for the period prior to refund. Obiter - commendation of counsel and departmental efforts are ancillary comments. Conclusion: The Court directed payment of interest for the period of delay, notwithstanding manual processing of refund post-petition, and specified a timeframe for compliance. Relief and Directions Interpretation and reasoning: In light of mandatory statutory scheme and absence of departmental proof of taxpayer fault, the Court granted relief directing respondent authorities to pay interest on the delayed refund in accordance with section 56 within a specified period. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - directive to pay interest in accordance with section 56 where refund was delayed due to system glitch and no proven taxpayer fault; timeline directive for compliance is incidental to effective relief. Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant interest on the delayed IGST refund within the prescribed period in accordance with law.