High Court of Telangana30 July 2026

Synchrony International Service (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), STU-1

For assessee

The ruling in brief

Where petitioners sought interest on delayed refund after principal refund was already sanctioned, insistence by authorities on fresh certification and compliance under Rule 89(2)(m) was not warranted, and Proper Officer was required to compute and sanction interest on basis of refund orders without demanding further documentation

Provisions considered

Section 56 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 89, read with rule 94, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Related rulings

Delhi High Court8 Sept 2026

For assessee

King Impex v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax

Where assessee obtained refund of pre-deposit made during demand proceedings after partial appellate relief and sought interest on delayed refund, authorities had no discretion to deny statutory interest under Section 56 once refund was sanctioned, so liability to pay such interest stood triggered and authorities were obliged to quantify and release due interest

Gujarat High Court2 Jul 2026

For assessee

Kuehne Nagel (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Where petitioner’s original refund application filed on an earlier date was wrongly refused leading to court-directed re-filing, interest under Section 56 must be calculated from original filing date, as initial refusal cannot defer statutory interest; thus, officer’s adoption of later date for interest denial was unsustainable and interest was to be granted from date of first filing

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

CGST S.93

Related rulings

Delhi High Court8 Sept 2026

For assessee

CGST S.93

Synchrony International Service (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), STU-1

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Synchrony International Service (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), STU-1

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

King Impex v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax

Kuehne Nagel (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Jaiwanti v. Union of India