Security deposit retention requires proven contractual loss; unsubstantiated input tax credit claims cannot justify continued withholding after expiry.

Security deposit retention requires the employer to establish the contractor's default, resulting loss and contractual authority for any deduction after completion and expiry of the retention period. Alleged input tax credit loss from defective VAT invoices cannot support withholding without evidence of actual denial, causation and reliable quantification, particularly where invoices were accepted and processed. Contractual clauses permitting recovery of loss or compensation do not authorise unproved statutory adjustments. Although the contract excluded interest during valid retention, continued withholding after expiry of the performance guarantee period attracted interest at a commercially equitable rate rather than the higher rate claimed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was contractually entitled to retain the balance security deposit on the alleged loss of input tax credit arising from defective VAT invoices; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the refunded security deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent was contractually entitled to retain the balance security deposit on the alleged loss of input tax credit arising from defective VAT invoices.

Analysis: The appellant established the foundational facts of completion and acceptance of the works, expiry of the relevant retention period, and demand for refund. The evidentiary onus consequently shifted to the respondent to prove the alleged invoice defects, actual denial and quantification of input tax credit, causation, and a contractual right to recover the alleged loss from the security deposit. The respondent had accepted and processed the invoices, deducted VAT, and issued Form VAT 156, yet produced no tax assessment, audit material, rejection communication, or reliable computation establishing that input tax credit was denied solely due to the appellant's invoices. Its own records also contained an inconsistency concerning the applicable tax rate. Clauses governing the security deposit permitted recovery only of loss, damage, compensation, or other sums shown to be contractually payable due to the contractor's default; they did not authorise an unproved adjustment for an alleged statutory consequence. The respondent's failure to timely address any alleged invoice defect after accepting the invoices could not be shifted to the appellant.

Conclusion: The respondent had no established contractual right to withhold Rs. 36,64,474 from the security deposit; the appellant was entitled to its refund. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the refunded security deposit.

Analysis: The contract excluded interest while the security deposit was validly retained. However, the five-year performance guarantee period ended on 30.10.2018, after which the purpose of retention ceased and continued withholding became wrongful. In the absence of a contractual stipulation for the claimed rate of 18% per annum, a commercial rate of 9% per annum was found just and equitable from 31.10.2018 until realisation.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to interest at 9% per annum from 31.10.2018 until realisation, but not at 18% per annum. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decree dismissing the claim for refund was set aside, and the appellant obtained recovery of the withheld security deposit with interest at the reduced rate.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a contractor establishes completion, expiry of the retention period, and entitlement to refund, the employer must prove the contractor's default, the resulting loss, and contractual authority for any deduction from the security deposit; an unsubstantiated alleged tax-credit loss cannot justify retention.

---