Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest was payable on the refunded GST amount collected on ocean freight under a levy later held unconstitutional, and whether Sections 54 and 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 barred such claim.
Analysis: The refund claim arose from tax collected on ocean freight under reverse charge, after the levy embodied in Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10 of 2017 had been struck down. The decision treated the tax already paid under protest as money of which the taxpayer had been deprived of use from the date of deposit until refund. It held that refund claims arising from a levy declared unconstitutional are not governed by the limitation framework of Section 54, and that Section 56 does not defeat entitlement to interest where the amount was retained until refund. Interest was viewed as compensation for loss of use of money, and the rate of 6% was found fair and consistent with the compensatory principle.
Conclusion: Interest was payable from the date of deposit of the tax until the date of refund, and the rejection of the interest claim was set aside; the petitioner succeeded on this issue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where tax is collected under a levy subsequently declared unconstitutional, the payer is entitled to compensatory interest from the date of deposit till refund, and the ordinary refund limitation under the GST statute does not govern such claim.