01Facts
The petitioners filed an original refund application on 14.10.2023
¶ 4The respondent authorities initially refused to accept/process the application, leading the petitioners to file a writ petition (SCA No. 12151 of 2025). On 06.11.2025, the High Court set aside the respondents' refusal and directed them to process the refund claim
¶ 4, 5Following this order, the petitioners submitted a fresh application on 11.11.2025
¶ 4.1The respondents sanctioned the principal refund amount of Rs. 2,29,32,535/- but rejected the interest claim of Rs. 29,51,700/-, arguing that the conditions for interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act were not met, as they calculated the timeline from the subsequent application date rather than the original 2023 filing
¶ 3, 4.102Issues
i.Whether the date for calculating interest on a delayed refund under Section 56 of the CGST Act should be the date of the initial application (14.10.2023) or the date of the subsequent application (11.11.2025) filed after judicial intervention.
¶ 4.1, 703Law Applied
Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), which provides for interest on delayed refunds if the amount is not refunded within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application
¶ 3The principle of judicial restitution, emphasizing that when a prior administrative action—refusing to process a refund—is declared illegal by a court, the state cannot benefit from its own wrong by resetting the limitation period for interest
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 56
04Reasoning
the initial action of the respondents in refusing to process the refund application dated 14.10.2023 was held to be illegal in the previous round of litigation (SCA No. 12151 of 2025), that original date must be preserved for statutory benefits
¶ 6, 7The "Proper Officer" had erroneously construed the subsequent filing on 11.11.2025 as a fresh start-point for the accrual of interest
¶ 4.1The court held that because the original denial was set aside, the subsequent application merely satisfied procedural requirements following the court's mandate, and thus, the claim for interest must relate back to the date of the earlier application to satisfy the intent of Section 56
¶ 705Holding
The Court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned orders to the extent that they denied the interest
¶ 7The Court held that the interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act must be processed by considering the date of the initial application (14.10.2023)
¶ 7The respondents were directed to pass necessary orders on the claim of interest within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs
¶ 7Original Court PDF
KUEHNE NAGEL PVT. LTD.vsTHE UNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
