Navrang Infrastructures Inc vs. Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Another
Held
The Court considered the submissions of both parties. It noted that the Appellate Authority had already directed the respondents to pay interest along with the refund. Crucially, the Court observed that the order passed by the Appellate Authority has not been challenged by the department. Taking this into account, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to calculate the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit. The Court also directed that the necessary exercise for calculating and releasing the interest should be completed within two months from the date of the order. The amount in dispute, which was the subject of the refund and interest claim, was not explicitly quantified in the judgment.
Facts
The petitioner, Navrang Infrastructures INC, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner contended that although an order granting refund was passed, and the Appellate Authority also directed payment of interest, the interest has not been released. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, argued that interest in terms of the provisions of the Act is not required to be paid as the amount deposited by the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of tax. The petitioner had deposited an amount, which was subsequently refunded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount deposited and subsequently refunded, as directed by the Appellate Authority, under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act? The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority had already directed the respondents to pay interest along with the refund, and this order has not been challenged by the department. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the interest. The revenue contended that interest in terms of the provisions of the Act is not required to be paid because the amount deposited by the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of tax.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
246 I
Navrang Infra
Commissione
CORAM: H
H Present: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate for Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Sr. Standing ***
RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the petition was granted to the petitioner an ay interest, the same has not been Learned counsel for the revenue est in terms of the provisions o he amount deposited by the pet
We have considered the submissi Taking into consideration that ted the respondents to pay intere which has already been refunded, NJAB AND HARYANA ARH CWP-17045-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.12.2024
…Petitioner Tax and another
…Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner. Counsel for the revenue.
) ner has submitted that although d the Appellant Authority also n released. e has filed reply and submitted of the Act is not required to be titioner does not fall
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.