9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present petition, inter alia, claiming interest on the amount of Rs.68,37,488/-. 2. By an order dated 04.10.2021, a refund of Rs.1,12,98,201/- was sanctioned. This comprised of Rs.44,60,713/- on account of State Goods and Services Tax (SGST); Rs.44,60,713/- on account of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), and Rs.23,76,775/- on account of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). 3. The refund of SGST for the amount of Rs.44,60,713/- was processed and disbursed on 09.03.2022. However, the refund of CGST and IGST was not processed despite the refund order dated 04.10.2021, sanctioning the same. This led the petitioner to file the present petition, inter alia, claiming a refund of Rs.68,37,488/- (Rs.44,60,713/- being CGST and Rs.23,76,77 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, requests that directions be issued for an expeditious disposal of the petitioner's appeal. 8. In so far as the interest for the period commencing from 04.10.2021 is concerned, this Court had expressed its prima facie view in the order dated 01.05.2023, that the same would be payable as there has been an inordinate delay in disbursing the refund. 9. Mr. R. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the concerned department is unable to process the refund as there is no statutory provision for grant of this refund. 10. Interest is essentially a compensation to a person who has been deprived of use of the amounts due to him. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Unio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e there was no statutory provision for payment of interest. 12. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the sum of Rs.68,37,488/- from 01.11.2021 (considering an allowance of twenty-six days for the respondents to comply with the refund sanction order dated 04.10.2021) till the date of payment, that is, 27.04.2023. 13. In so far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is required to be compensatory and not necessarily pegged at 6% per annum as contended by Mr Ramachandran. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the rate of 6% per annum, and the same is also stipulated rate of interest in the statute; we find no reason to undertake further examination as to the apposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
