Bombay High Court Allows Interest on Delayed GST Refund Despite Red Flagging of Exporter. Petitioner entitled to interest under Section 56 of CGST Act for period beyond 60 days from filing shipping bill, as red flagging does not justify indefinite delay.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 743
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Ms. Anita Agarwal, sole proprietor of M/s. Shanker International, is an exporter of goods such as Ethyl Alcohol Liquid Packaging Film and Iodized salt. During the period August 2018 to July 2019, she filed various shipping bills, which are considered refund applications under Section 16(3) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, claiming a refund of IGST of Rs. 3.21 crore. The refund was granted only in August 2020 after constant follow-up. The petitioner was informed that her name was flagged on the 'risky exporters list', causing the delay. The red flag was removed on 3 August 2020 after receipt of NOC from the Risk Management Centre for Customs, and the refund was granted thereafter. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking interest on the delayed refund under Section 56 of the CGST Act. The respondents argued that there was no delay as the refund was granted immediately after the red flag was removed. The court framed the issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 56 for the period from the expiry of 60 days from the filing of the shipping bill until the date of refund, despite the red flagging. The court analyzed Section 56, which mandates interest if refund is not made within 60 days from the date of receipt of application. The court noted that as per Circular dated 17 June 2019, verification in red-flagged cases must be completed within 30 days, and Circular No.131/1/2020 dated 23 January 2020 requires verification within 14 working days. The court held that the red flagging does not justify indefinite delay and the respondents are bound to complete verification within the prescribed time. The court directed the respondents to pay interest under Section 56 for the period from the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill until the date of refund, after excluding 30 days for verification as per the Circular dated 17 June 2019. The petition was allowed in part.

Headnote

A) Goods and Services Tax - Interest on Delayed Refund - Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Red Flagging of Exporter - The petitioner, an exporter, claimed refund of IGST on exports. The refund was delayed due to the petitioner's name being red-flagged on the respondents' portal. The court held that the red flagging does not justify indefinite delay and the respondents are bound to complete verification within the time prescribed under Circulars. The petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 56 for the period beyond 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill until the date of refund, excluding the period of 30 days for verification as per Circular dated 17 June 2019. (Paras 8-14)

B) Goods and Services Tax - Time Limit for Verification - Circular dated 17 June 2019 and Circular No.131/1/2020 dated 23 January 2020 - The court noted that as per Circular dated 17 June 2019, verification of red-flagged cases must be completed within 30 days. The respondents failed to complete verification within that period. The court directed that interest be paid for the period of delay beyond 60 days from the date of application, after excluding 30 days for verification. (Paras 10-14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act for the period starting from the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill up to the date of grant of refund, although during the interregnum, the Petitioner’s name was red flagged on the respondents' portal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act for the period from the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill until the date of refund, after excluding 30 days for verification as per Circular dated 17 June 2019. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

Law Points

  • Interest on delayed refund
  • Section 56 CGST Act
  • Red flagging of exporter
  • Time limit for verification
  • Circular dated 17 June 2019
  • Circular No.131/1/2020 dated 23 January 2020
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (11) 146

WRIT PETITION NO.1474 OF 2023

2024-11-14

M. S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain

Mr. Sriram Sridharan for Petitioner, Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. Rupesh Dubey for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5

Ms. Anita Agarwal (Sole Proprietor of M/s. Shanker International)

Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Tax and Custom, The Additional Commissioner (Nhava Sheva – II)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking interest on delayed refund of IGST under Section 56 of CGST Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought direction to respondents to grant interest on delayed refund of IGST under Section 56 of CGST Act.

Filing Reason

Refund of IGST of Rs. 3.21 crore was granted after delay of about one year due to petitioner's name being red-flagged on respondents' portal.

Issues

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act for the period starting from the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill up to the date of grant of refund, although during the interregnum, the Petitioner’s name was red flagged on the respondents' portal.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that she was never informed about her name being red-flagged, and as per Circular No.16 of 2019 dated 17 June 2019, investigation in red-flagged cases must be completed within 30 days, so interest for 30 days can be excluded. Respondents submitted that as soon as NOC was received in August 2020, the red flag was removed and refund was granted, so there was no delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The red flagging of an exporter does not justify indefinite delay in granting refund. The respondents are bound to complete verification within the time prescribed under Circulars. Interest under Section 56 of CGST Act is payable for the period beyond 60 days from the date of application, after excluding the time prescribed for verification.

Judgment Excerpts

The short point that arises for our consideration is whether the Petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act for the period starting from the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill up to the date of grant of refund, although during the interregnum, the Petitioner’s name was red flagged on the respondents' portal. Section 56 of the CGST Act provides for the grant of interest on delayed refunds... The red flagging of the Petitioner's name cannot be a ground to deny interest for the period of delay beyond 60 days from the date of application, after excluding the period of 30 days for verification as per the Circular dated 17 June 2019.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1474 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The petition was reserved on 11 November 2024 and pronounced on 14 November 2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 54, Section 56
  • Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 16(3)
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017: Rule 96
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal to Sanction Variation of Town Planning Scheme. State Government's Refusal to Delete Internal Road Upheld as Valid Exercise of Discretion Under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal Against High Court Order Summoning Additional Evidence in Asaram Bapu Conviction Case. Section 391 CrPC Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps in Prosecution Case or to Introduce Evidence That Could Have Been Produced at Tria...