https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400352 Madras HC held that interest under section 50 of the CGST Act is compensatory and applies only to delayed cash payment of tax, not to tax discharged through utilisation of input tax credit, because the State is not deprived of funds in the same manner. It further held that the proviso inserted by section 100 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 is curative and declaratory, so it operates retrospectively from 01.07.2017 to confine interest to net cash liability. The interest demands on ITC-based discharge were therefore unsustainable, while recovery could continue only for any interest lawfully attributable to delayed cash remittance. en-us Tue, 29 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400352 Madras HC held that interest under section 50 of the CGST Act is compensatory and applies only to delayed cash payment of tax, not to tax discharged through utilisation of input tax credit, because the State is not deprived of funds in the same manner. It further held that the proviso inserted by section 100 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 is curative and declaratory, so it operates retrospectively from 01.07.2017 to confine interest to net cash liability. The interest demands on ITC-based discharge were therefore unsustainable, while recovery could continue only for any interest lawfully attributable to delayed cash remittance. Case-Laws GST Tue, 29 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400352