2022 (10) TMI 913 - HC - GST

Refund alongwith interest - period April 2019 to September 2019 - period October 2020 to December 2020 - HELD THAT - Mr. Mishra states that department has reviewed that order and has also filed an appeal under sub-Section (2) of Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). In effect, Mr. Mishra states that even department has not accepted the impugned order and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.88,46,01,539/- together with interest, if any. The respondents shall process petitioner s original application for refund together with interest and pay the amount on or before 31st October 2022. At the same time, petitioner is at liberty to file such an application, should they wish to - the impugned order dated 29th July 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refund rejection order for the period October 2020 to December 2020.
2. Granting interest on the refunded amount for the period April 2019 to September 2019.
3. Review of the refund rejection order and filing of an appeal by the department.
4. Challenge to a previous order and judgment passed by the court.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the refund rejection order for the period October 2020 to December 2020. The court noted that the department had reviewed the order and filed an appeal, indicating that even the department did not accept the rejection. Consequently, the court directed the department to process the original refund application along with interest and pay the amount by a specified date, without requiring a new application from the petitioner. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order.

2. Regarding the refund amount claimed for the period April 2019 to September 2019, the petitioner had received the refund but without interest. The petitioner's counsel highlighted this issue, stating that interest had not been granted on the refunded amount. The department's explanation that interest was not granted due to not receiving interest calculations from the petitioner was deemed baseless by the court. The court directed the department to pay the interest amount within a week of receiving the necessary calculations, either through an online or physical application.

3. The court addressed the issue of challenging a previous order and judgment passed by the court. The respondent expressed the intention to challenge the previous order and sought liberty to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) if advised to do so. The court granted liberty to the department to file an SLP, regardless of the order passed on the current petition or the refund granted to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court provided relief to the petitioner by directing the department to process the refund applications with interest and quashing the impugned order. The court also allowed the department the liberty to challenge a previous order through an SLP if deemed necessary.