2022 (8) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., as the principal amount towards refund has already been remitted. 1.1. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, what remains is the payment of statutory interest. 1.2. This position is affirmed by the counsel for the respondents. 2. As a matter of fact, a copy of the order dated 22.03.2022, passed by the Goods and Service Tax Officer (GSTO), Ward-72, Department of Trade & Taxes has been placed before us. 2.1. The calculation, as reflected in the said order, insofar as the petitioner is concerned reads as follows : "(1) Refund claimed by the taxpayer: Rs.25,29,944/- (2) Refund already granted Rs.14,22,482/- (3) Refund to be further allowed Rs.11,07,462/-"" ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adras High Court dated 28.09.2022, passed in W.P (C) 18165/2021, titled M/s GNC Infra LLP v. Assistant Commissioner (circle), in support of his submission that the period for processing refund claims stood extended. 6. On the other hand, Mr Vasdev Lalwani, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the principles enunciated in the orders/ judgement referred to above will not be applicable in the present case. 6.1. It is Mr Lalwani's submission that the refund application was filed by the petitioner on 20.07.2021 and thereafter, albeit in tranches, the refund was remitted to the petitioner. 6.2. According to Mr Lalwani, the first tranche amounting to Rs.14,22,482/-, was remitted to the petitioner on 04.01.2022, while the sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lication for refund. 10. Therefore, in our view, interest is payable to the petitioner. The respondents/revenue are directed to pay to the petitioner at the statutory rate as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. 11. The submission that limitation was extended by virtue of orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.(C.) 3/2020 is, according to us, completely misconceived. 11.1. It is relevant to note that neither the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.(C.) 3/2020 and the judgement of the Madras High Court in M/s GNC Infra LLP v. Assistant Commissioner (circle) (referred to above) concern the point in issue i.e., grant of interest on refund withheld beyond the period prescribed under the Act. 12. The statut....