Delve into the intricacies of interest payable on repayment of erroneous refunds in India, exploring legal provisions, implications for taxpayers, and potential avenues for resolution.
Something worth your attention is a levy of Interest and the manner of such interest on repayment of erroneous refunds back to the government.
This is not only about the interest, but the whole system through which the recovery of the said alleged erroneous refunds are being recovered.
In today’s time, when taxpayers facing the heat of Rule 96(10) are bombarded with Notices seeking repayment of the refund received by them along with interest is a matter of worry, as in the way the matter is being handled in the past 2 years shows the intent of the government, which is “Collection of the Taxes at any cost”. With this, they have forgotten their intent of boosting Exporters, but rather then they are served with notices.
I have seen instances wherein Customs, DGGI & GST Jurisdiction are collectively involved in the collection of said amount.
There are many aspects and taxpayers are muddled with various thoughts, many are banging on the doors of the High Court.
Now, seeing this, we have handled more than 100 cases, wherein the said issue is prevalent and thus came up with this critique to grab your attention to this worrisome issue for the exporter’s community.
Part 2 of the same will be posted soon with the Casseate’ B Side to hit the questions like:-
1. What’s the law for demanding “Interest” in the Law?
Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 is the only section that speaks about the Interest payable in a few situations.
Said section mentions two scenarios wherein the interest can be demanded: –
Now, earlier there was no mechanism prescribing the manner through which the interest shall be calculated. Thus, vide NOTIFICATION NO. 14/2022–Central Tax dated 05-07-2022, Rule 88B of the CGST Rules, 2017 was introduced with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
This is to be understood that, Interest is paid on the arrears of the taxes or wrongly availed and utilized credit is Compensatory or Penal?
In the case of CIT v. Kaypee Mechanical India (P) Ltd. (TAX APPEAL No. 186 of 2014) wherein the Gujarat High Court explicitly stated that the assessee paid interest on delayed payment of service tax and that this expenditure was incurred by the assessee during business and exclusively for business. Therefore, it was held that the payment made by the assessee cannot be construed to be a payment made for violation of any law.
Also, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Luxmi Devi Sugar Mills P. Limited and Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company v. CIT (1980 AIR 754, 1980 SCR (3) 421), clearly provided that payment of interest is compensatory and cannot be equated with the character of penalty.
This is important especially when you categorize the refund as “Errernouos”, as the levy of interest will be there on the Erroneous refund as well when there is an ambiguity surrounding it?
2. What is the Erroneous Refund?
The said term is not defined in GST law but has been mentioned in Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Law, 2017.
The term “erroneous” has been defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary as “involving error; deviating from the law”.
Further, the Judgment of the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State, (2) 2 SCC 718 held that incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous.
30. The learned Sr. counsel submits that this Court in Rajendra Singh Vs. Superintendent of Taxes reported in 1990 Vol. 1 GLR 449, held that “erroneous” means involving error; deviating from law. The Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment held that “Erroneous assessment” refers to an assessment that deviates from the law and is therefore invalid, and is a defect that is jurisdictional, and does not refer to the judgment of the assessing officer in fixing the amount of valuation of the property. Similarly ‘erroneous judgment’ means: ‘One rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon a mistaken view of the law, or erroneous application of legal principles”.
The larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee, reported in 2012 (2) GLR 495, held therein that incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law as also non-application of mind and condition to follow natural justice will satisfy the requirement of the order being “erroneous”.
Now, take an example of Rule 96(10), wherein a few of the categories are barred from taking the refund through “with payment of IGST” If they have availed the exemption of IGST.
Now, in these kinds of refunds, wherein the taxpayer takes a valid Authorization from DGFT, then files returns in GST with true information then filed Shipping Bills with true information. Now after the due assessment of the Shipping Bill, the refund through the automatic route was granted.
Now, said refund can be termed as “Errneous”? especially when the Government vide Notification No. 16/2020 – Central Tax dated 23-03-2020 prescribed that, if the taxpayer takes only BCD Exemption and pays the IGST on imports then Rule 96(10) does not apply.
Now, can it be said that the previously taken refunds by the taxpayers are “Erroneous”?
This is a non liquet! (When there is no proper applicable law)
Even then the levy of Interest will be there?
3. Provision for Interest payable on Erroneous Refund?
There was no manner by the law through which the “Repayment” of Erroneous Refund has been prescribed.
From the above-mentioned points, it is clear that the situation is not that clear. This chaos is ignited by a recently introduced rule i.e. Rule 86(4B), through which it was defined that the taxpayer can regularise the issue of Rule 96(10) by repayment of the IGST Refund along with Interest against which the Taxpayer will get the Recredit of the IGST.
Now, since this matter is very important for a lot of Exporters who are already facing the heat of impugned “Recovery of Erroneous Refund”.
More light has been ignited by the Circular No. 174/06/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022, which clarified that re-credit of the amount in the electronic credit ledger can be done once the taxpayer deposits the erroneously refunded amount along with interest and penalty.
When a statute levies a tax, it does so by inserting a charging section by which a liability is created or fixed and then proceeds to provide the machinery to make the liability effective.
It, therefore, provides the machinery for the assessment of the liability already fixed by the charging section and then provides the mode for the recovery and collection of tax, including penal provisions meant to deal with defaulters.
Provision is also made for charging interest on delayed payments, etc. Ordinarily, the charging section which fixes the liability is strictly construed but that rule of strict construction is not extended to the machinery provisions which are construed like any other statute.
As held by the Apex Court in the matter of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. V/s. Commercial Taxes Officer 1994 SCC (4) 276, any provision made in a statute for charging or levying interest on delayed payment of tax must be construed as substantive law and not adjectival law.
The Gujarat High Court in C.C.E. & C., Surat-I V/s. Ukai Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., while dealing with the provisions of the Central Excise Act read with the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958, also held that interest can be levied and charged on delayed payment of tax only if the statute that levies and charges the tax makes a substantive provision in this behalf.
Further, in the case of MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. (AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR), VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, ADDITIONAL BENCH, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI, THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DGCEI, MUMBAI 2022 (10) TMI 212 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that Government cannot include interest in the settlement arrived at by it on the ground that the petitioner has derived financial benefits by not paying the correct rate of duty when it was due. Deriving financial benefits itself cannot be ground to order payment of interest in the absence of any statutory provisions for payment of interest.
Thus, it may be observed the issue of interest on repayment of an erroneous refund should be seen from Actus legis nemini facit injurium (The act of law injures no one).
Those who are facing the heat of Rule 96(10) might approach the doors of the High Court for suitable clarity in their ongoing litigation.
Navjot Singh – Partner S U N G & Company
Author can be reached at email@example.com or +91 9953357999