M/S. Landmark Lifestyle vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged a GST circular and a notice demanding interest on their tax liability. The petitioner argued that interest should only be charged on net liability after considering admissible credit.
Held
The Court set aside the demand notice for interest. It clarified that any demand for interest relating to Input Tax Credit would be without jurisdiction.
Key Issues
Whether interest under GST is leviable on the gross tax liability or net liability after considering Input Tax Credit.
Sections Cited
Section 50(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2023
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “a. Issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/ order/ direction by declaring that the impugned Circular No. 7/7/2017-GST, dated 1-9-2017, particularly the para 11 and para 12 of said circular issued by the Respondent No. 1 is ultra vires to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST/ Central Tax) and bad in law; b. Issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/ order/ direction to the Respondents by quashing the impugned Notice F. No. GST East/ MCIE/ Landmark Lifestyle/173/2019/1039/7/5/19, dated 06.05.2019 demanding interest of Rs. 8,19,85,434/- by decaling that same is without juri iction, absolutely, contrary to the legal provisions and bad in law; This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/06/2026 at 20:02:24
c. Issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/ order/ direction to the Respondent No. 1 to implement the decision taken by the Respondent No. 3/ GST Council, a Constitutional Body, in its 31st GST Council meeting held on 22.12.2018 that interest should be charged only on net liability of the taxpayer, after taking into account the admissible credit;”
Mr. J.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that by virtue of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2021 the proviso to Section 50(1) of the GST Act has been substituted with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. In view of the above, prayer (c) does not survive.
He states that as a consequence, the order of demand imposing interest of ₹8,19,85,434/- is also required to be set aside and prayer (b) is required to be allowed.
He further states that the prayer (a), as made above, is no longer relevant.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, concurs with the aforesaid submissions.
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by setting aside the notice dated 06.05.2019, raising a demand of ₹8,19,85,434/-, with a further clarification that the demand relating to the portion of interest that relates to Input Tax Credit would be without juri iction. VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J JANUARY 13, 2023 “SS” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/06/2026 at 20:02:24
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.