Paramount Agrotech Food Pvt. Ltd Vs State of Himachal Pradesh And Others (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Summary: Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by M/s Paramount Agrotech Food (P) Ltd seeking release of refund of Rs.7,77,375 along with interest pursuant to an appellate order dated 21.11.2025. The petitioner also sought interest in terms of Section 56 under the HPGST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017.
The petitioner submitted that, in terms of the appellate order passed in its favour, it was entitled to release of the refund amount along with interest, which according to it was due from the year 2023. The State, however, submitted that after the appeal was decided on 21.11.2025, the Department acted expeditiously from the date on which the petitioner filed its refund application and, therefore, no interest was payable.
The High Court observed that Sections 54 and 56 of the GST Act, 2017 relate respectively to refund of tax and interest on delayed refund. It held that the issue of interest on the purported delayed refund had first to be raised before the authority envisaged under the statute. Only after exhausting the statutory remedies, if the party remained dissatisfied or aggrieved, could it invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the “finality clause.”
At the petitioner’s request for an expeditious decision, the High Court directed that if the petitioner raises the issue of interest on delayed refund before the appropriate authority within two weeks, the authority shall take necessary action on the application within 60 days from its receipt while adhering to the principles of natural justice. Significantly, the Court expressly clarified that it had made no observation on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for interest. The writ petition and pending miscellaneous applications were accordingly disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus o any other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondents to release refund of Rs.777375/- alongwith interest to the petitioner expeditiously within three weeks in pursuant to the order passed in Appeal No.AD020723000281W dated 21.11.2025 (Ann P-2) of the appellate authority.
ii. Directing to the respondent to grant interest in terms of Section 56 under HPGST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017.
iii. Grant ad-interim ex parte relief directing the respondents to provisionally credit the amount during the pendency of this petition.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the appellate order which was passed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for the release of refund of the amount, along with interest, which interest as per him is due from the year 2023.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that after the appeal was decided on 21.11.2025, as from the date when an application was filed by the petitioner for the refund of the amount, needful was done expeditiously by the Department. Thus, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any interest.
4. We are of the considered view that as Sections 54 and 56 of the GST Act, 2017, relate to the refund of tax and also interest on delayed refund, firstly, the issue of interest on purported delayed refund, if any, has to be raised by the party before the authority envisaged in the Act. If, after exhausting statutory remedies, the party is still not satisfied or for that matter there is any aggrieved party(s), then such party can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the “finality clause”.
5. At this stage, Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, submits that it be observed that in case the petitioner approaches the authority on the issue of interest on delayed refund, then, the application of the petitioner be decided expeditiously.
6. We observe that in case the issue of interest on delayed refund is raised by the petitioner before the appropriate authority within two weeks from today, then, needful on the said application shall be done by the authority within a period of 60 days as from the date of the receipt of the application, of course, by adhering to the principles of natural justice. We have not made any observation on the merits of the case.
7. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
