Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of declaration or any other writ in the nature of declaration or direction or order thereby declaring that interest on delayed refunds under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is automatic and payable to the petitioner from the date after expiry of three months from the date of the original filing of the refund application till the date of actual payment of the refund without making any application to this effect; ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus, or direction or order thereby directing the Respondents, their servants, agents or representatives to forthwith grant and sanction interest of Rs.44,29,76,104 on delayed refund sanctioned to the petitioner for the period October 2007 to June 2017, from the date after expiry of three months from the date of the original filing of the refund application till the date of actual payment of the refund; and / or iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble Court.”
Heard Sri Kumar Harshavardhan and Sri Bharath Janarthanan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44795
A perusal at the material on record will indicate that for the period October, 2007 to June, 2017, the petitioner filed refund claims, seeking refund of unutilized CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the period from March, 2009 to June, 2020, the petitioner received orders sanctioning the refund claims, which is tabulated at Annexure ‘A’. On 14.11.2009, the respondents – Revenue issued a show cause notice seeking to reject the entire refund claim. Thereafter, by a series of orders passed by the competent authority, the refund claim of the petitioner was upheld and the same have attained finality and become binding upon the respondents. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application seeking disbursement of interest on belated sanction of the refund claims. Since the respondents did not respond to the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition by placing reliance upon the following judgments: a. FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [2024 : KHC : 16563] HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44795 b. THE OCWEN FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMTIED VS. THE UNION OF INDIA [2024 : KHC : 32404] OF INDIA [2024 (3) TMI 794 – Kar HC] TAX [2022 (12) TMI 974 – Kar HC].
A perusal of the material on record and the aforesaid facts and circumstances, would indicate is that the petitioner has been sanctioned refund and the short issue that would now arise for consideration is, ‘Whether the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the delayed refund claims made by the petitioner’.
In this context, this Court in the case of FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES (supra) has held as follows:
In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the application dated 14.10.2022 submitted by the petitioner for refund of interest on delayed receipt of Service Tax refund for the period commencing from July, 2007 upto June, 2017 as enumerated in Annexure-B series (colly). It is submitted that as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner would be entitled for refund of interest HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44795 granted in his favour upon expiry of 90 days from the date of submission of the application, if the refund is not made back to the petitioner within the said period i.e., 90 days.
Learned counsel for the respondents-revenue does not dispute that the refund has already been granted in favour of the petitioner. However, various other contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are disputed and it is submitted that there is no merit in the petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, a perusal of the material on record, comprising of the details of the refund orders and refund payments made in favour of the petitioner as enumerated in Annexure-C1 clearly indicate that the petitioner would be entitled for interest for delayed refund in terms of Section 11BB of the Act. Under these circumstances, there is absolutely no impediment to direct the respondents to grant applicable interest on delayed refund in terms of Section 11BB of the Act in favour of the petitioner. However, in order to grant an opportunity to the concerned respondent for the limited purpose to verify the calculation of quantum of interest on the delayed refund as clamed by the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the concerned respondent to grant interest on the refund as sought for in Annexure-B series dated 14.10.2022 in favour of the petitioner after making due verification and in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame.”
In the instant case, the respondents having not considered the claim of the petitioner for interest on delayed refund and in the light of the principles laid down in the afore- extracted judgment of this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be disposed off, directing the concerned respondent to grant interest on the delayed refund as sought for at Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’, within a stipulated time frame. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44795
In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The respondents are directed to grant / pay interest on delayed refund to the petitioner as sought for in Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’, dated 05.12.2024 and 17.01.2025 respectively, after due verification as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.