https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92544 The HC allowed the petition and directed the respondents to refund to the petitioner the 70% pre-deposit of Rs. 16,11,19,226/- paid through ITC/ECL, together with interest for delayed payment, within six weeks. The court held that respondents, having consciously accepted the 70% deposit via ITC/ECL without objection, are estopped from refusing cash refund; Section 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) of the KGST Act mandate cash refunds irrespective of mode of initial deposit. The court rejected reliance on the impugned Circular and on Rule 92(1A) to deny cash reimbursement, and affirmed that statutory entitlement to refund carries an attendant right to interest for undue retention. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:41 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92544 The HC allowed the petition and directed the respondents to refund to the petitioner the 70% pre-deposit of Rs. 16,11,19,226/- paid through ITC/ECL, together with interest for delayed payment, within six weeks. The court held that respondents, having consciously accepted the 70% deposit via ITC/ECL without objection, are estopped from refusing cash refund; Section 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) of the KGST Act mandate cash refunds irrespective of mode of initial deposit. The court rejected reliance on the impugned Circular and on Rule 92(1A) to deny cash reimbursement, and affirmed that statutory entitlement to refund carries an attendant right to interest for undue retention. Highlights VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:41 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92544