High Court of Gujarat
Kuehne Nagel (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
For assessee
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 663, 667, 669, 671, 4373 AND 4408 OF 2026
High Court of Gujarat
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 663, 667, 669, 671, 4373 AND 4408 OF 2026
Where petitioner’s original refund application filed on an earlier date was wrongly refused leading to court-directed re-filing, interest under Section 56 must be calculated from original filing date, as initial refusal cannot defer statutory interest; thus, officer’s adoption of later date for interest denial was unsustainable and interest was to be granted from date of first filing
Section 56, read with section 54, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against review petition of High Court holding that where assessee withdrew refund application after issuance of deficiency memo and later sought interest for that disputed period in review petition on ground of error apparent, as no error or mistake was found in earlier judgment denying interest for that period, review petition was not maintainable and not considered on merits
Delhi High Court
Where assessee obtained refund of pre-deposit made during demand proceedings after partial appellate relief and sought interest on delayed refund, authorities had no discretion to deny statutory interest under Section 56 once refund was sanctioned, so liability to pay such interest stood triggered and authorities were obliged to quantify and release due interest
Telangana High Court
Where petitioners sought interest on delayed refund after principal refund was already sanctioned, insistence by authorities on fresh certification and compliance under Rule 89(2)(m) was not warranted, and Proper Officer was required to compute and sanction interest on basis of refund orders without demanding further documentation