Qualcom India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CST & Ors.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 919 (Tel-HC) IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT P.SAM KOSHY & N.TUKARAMJI Qualcom India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CST & Ors. W.P. Nos. 8869 and 8871 of 2023 20 March, 2024 Petitioner(s) by: Karan Talwar Respondent(s) by: Swaroop Oorilla for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar for respondent No.4 ORDER *P. Sam Koshy* These two writ petitions have been filed by the two establishments where the question of law needs adjudication is, whether the petitioners herein are entitled for interest under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act, 2017) on the delayed granting of refund of Input Tax Credit (for short, ITC) claimed under section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Heard Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State tax for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3; and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent No.4. 3. The broad facts, for convenience without referring to the dates as the issues are in common, are that, the petitioners had filed a refund claim petition before the respondents claiming for refund of the unutilized ITC. Upon raising the said claim, the respondents issued a deficiency memo to which the petitioners promptly replied. Subsequently, show causes notices were issued to which also the petitioners replied and finally orders were passed rejecting the refund claims. The rejection of the refund claims was subjected to challenge in the appeals and the appeals filed by the petitioners were substantially allowed and refund amounts were also disbursed. 4. Later on the petitioners moved applications with the respondents requesting them for grant of interest on the amount refunded by them for the period it was withheld by the Department resulting in delayed releasing. In spite of persistent efforts by the petitioners, the interest on the delayed refunded amount was not granted. The request finally stood rejected by the Department vide orders dated 9-5-2022 and 19-2-2023 respectively, which are under challenge in the instant writ petitions. 5. It is in this factual backdrop that the question of law which needs adjudication has been framed as is reflected in the initial part of this order. 6. For proper understanding of the dispute, it would be more appropriate at this juncture to take note of the provision of section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017, which for ready reference is reproduced herein under: 56. Interest on delayed refunds SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 919 (Tel-HC)

IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT

P.SAM KOSHY & N.TUKARAMJI

Qualcom India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CST & Ors.

W.P. Nos. 8869 and 8871 of 2023

20 March, 2024

Petitioner(s) by: Karan Talwar

Respondent(s) by: Swaroop Oorilla for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar for respondent No.4

ORDER

P. Sam Koshy

These two writ petitions have been filed by the two establishments where the question of law needs adjudication is, whether the petitioners herein are entitled for interest under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act, 2017) on the delayed granting of refund of Input Tax Credit (for short, ITC) claimed under section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Heard Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State tax for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3; and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent No.4.

3. The broad facts, for convenience without referring to the dates as the issues are in common, are that, the petitioners had filed a refund claim petition before the respondents claiming for refund of the unutilized ITC. Upon raising the said claim, the respondents issued a deficiency memo to which the petitioners promptly replied. Subsequently, show causes notices were issued to which also the petitioners replied and finally orders were passed rejecting the refund claims. The rejection of the refund claims was subjected to challenge in the appeals and the appeals filed by the petitioners were substantially allowed and refund amounts were also disbursed.

4. Later on the petitioners moved applications with the respondents requesting them for grant of interest on the amount refunded by them for the period it was withheld by the Department resulting in delayed releasing. In spite of persistent efforts by the petitioners, the interest on the delayed refunded amount was not granted. The request finally stood rejected by the Department vide orders dated 9-5-2022 and 19-2-2023 respectively, which are under challenge in the instant writ petitions.

5. It is in this factual backdrop that the question of law which needs adjudication has been framed as is reflected in the initial part of this order.

6. For proper understanding of the dispute, it would be more appropriate at this juncture to take note of the provision of section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017, which for ready reference is reproduced herein under:

56. Interest on delayed refunds