Topic
CESTAT held that adjusting a SAD refund against a sub-judice duty drawback demand is impermissible under Section 142 of the Customs Act, ordering repayment of ₹17,96,125 with interest under Section 11BB and stating that recovery must await adjudication.
CESTAT ruled that a refund of service tax paid under a mistake of fact attracts interest at 12% per annum, superseding the earlier 6% rate. This higher rate applies to any taxpayer seeking restitution for erroneous service tax payments, enhancing compensation for delayed refunds. The decision sets a binding precedent for future service tax refund claims.
The Jharkhand High Court ordered the bank to pay 6% per annum interest on the Rs 30.90 million e-auction refund, finding that keeping the money without a sale certificate constituted unjust enrichment and that the bank’s undertaking was void for duress. The ruling strengthens restitution duties for banks under the SARFAESI Act and protects auction bidders.
CESTAT Mumbai rules that Section 35FF interest on pre-deposits applies to amounts deposited prior to 06.08.2014 under erstwhile provisions. The ruling clarifies retrospective applicability of interest on refunds for excise duty disputes, impacting pre-2014 deposit cases pending adjudication.
Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that ministerial cadre employees cannot be forced to repay salaries mistakenly paid at executive scale, setting a precedent for similarly situated employees. The court also awarded 6% interest on the recovered amount, reinforcing protections against unjust salary recoveries under service law.
The Delhi High Court upheld that when a buyer fails to deposit the balance consideration in court as required, the seller is entitled to interest on the refund from the date of payment, regardless of concealment of a second agreement. This clarifies that equitable relief in specific performance cases hinges on financial conduct, not procedural transparency alone, affecting real estate buyers and sellers nationwide.
CESTAT Allahabad rules that amounts paid under protest, without acceptance of liability, qualify as revenue deposits-not duty-making interest payable on their refund under general principles of equity, not Section 11B. This empowers taxpayers who pay under compulsion to claim interest, reshaping refund strategy in GST disputes where liability is contested.
Gauhati HC reaffirms that Section 34 CPC limits interest on delayed refunds of auction bid amounts to 6%, even after a seven-year delay, unless parties agree otherwise. The ruling underscores the statutory cap's applicability in SARFAESI proceedings, impacting banks and bidders in recovery disputes.
NCDRC upholds 9% interest on refunds for delayed plot possession, reinforcing the Supreme Court's ruling in Experion Developers v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor. The decision sets a binding precedent for real estate disputes, ensuring homebuyers receive statutory interest for developer delays.