Case Details: ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 27 Centax 323 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
- S/Shri Darius Shroff, Senior Adv. a/w. Prasad Paranjape & Kumar Harshvardhan i/b. Lumiere Law Partners, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Ram Ochani a/w. Saket Ketkar, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a banking institution registered under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, engaged in issuing credit cards, disputed the applicability of service tax on interchange fees earned by the issuing bank. It deposited ₹333.08 crore ‘under protest’ for the period April 2007 to June 2017 and later filed refund applications on 5 November 2019. Meanwhile, on 11 May 2015, the respondents issued a show cause notice demanding ₹82.26 crore in service tax on interchange fees, proposing adjustment against the deposit. Despite repeated requests, the show cause notice and refund applications remained pending. Aggrieved by the delay, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. seeking quashing of the show cause notice and a direction to refund the amount deposited under protest.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that while the prolonged non-adjudication of the show cause notice and refund applications was unjustified, the petitioner, having repeatedly sought adjudication, could not now claim quashing of the show cause notice on grounds of delay. The Court directed the Revenue to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 11 May 2015, along with its corrigendum, and process the refund applications within eight weeks. If found eligible, the refund was to be granted within two weeks along with applicable interest. The Court emphasized that tax proceedings should not be adversarial and that authorities must ensure fair and expeditious disposal of claims. The petition was disposed of with directions for timely adjudication and compliance.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Citi Bank — 2021 (12) TMI 483 — Referred [Paras 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]
- Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India — 2024 (80) G.S.T.L. 134 (Bom.) = (2023) 13 Centax 113 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 6]
