Case Details: Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 35 Centax 267 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
- S/Shri Tushar Jarwal, Rahul Sateja & Daliya Singh, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Shruti Vyas, Adv., Shri Amar Mishra, Himanshu Takke, AGPs, Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P & Abhishek R. Mishra for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an exporter engaged in software development services, had filed a refund application contending that the export of services was not taxable under GST. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the refund, whereupon the petitioner re-applied in accordance with the appellate order, and the jurisdictional officer under CGST sanctioned and credited the refund amount without granting any interest. The Department denied the petitioner’s claim for statutory interest on the ground that the refund was paid within sixty days from the date of re-application. The matter was accordingly placed before the Bombay High Court.
High Court Held
The Bombay High Court held that, in terms of Section 56 read with Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Maharashtra GST Act, statutory interest at six per cent was payable for delay beyond sixty days from the date of the original refund application, the re-application being only procedural in nature. The Court relied upon the decision in Lupin Ltd. [(2025) 33 Centax 282 (Bom.) = 2025 (102) G.S.T.L. 151 (Bom.)], wherein it was held that the statutory scheme contemplates computation of interest from the original application date, even if a refund is sanctioned subsequent to appellate proceedings. It was observed that the statute envisages two contingencies- interest at six per cent for delay beyond sixty days from the original application and at nine per cent where delay occurs after the appellate order. Since the initial rejection had been set aside, the respondents could not lawfully deny statutory interest. The impugned order was therefore quashed, and the respondents were directed to pay interest at six per cent from the expiry of sixty days from the original application date, within six weeks.
List of Cases Cited
- Bansal International v. Commissioner — (2023) 13 Centax 210 (Del.) = 2024 (83) G.S.T.L. 190 (Del.) — Referred [Para 7]
- Lupin Ltd. v. UOI — (2025) 33 Centax 282 (Bom.) = 2025 (102) G.S.T.L. 151 (Bom.) — Followed [Paras 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20]
- Qualcom India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC) — (2024) 17 Centax 482 (Telangana) = 2024 (86) G.S.T.L. 300 (Telangana) — Referred [Para 7]
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. UOI — 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (SC) — Referred [Paras 7, 14]
- SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. v. UOI — (2023) 3 Centax 217 (P&H.) = 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 174 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 7]
