King Impex v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
King Impex filed W.P. (C) No. 11434 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court; decision 8 September 2026. During demand proceedings the assessee paid pre-deposit; after partial success in appeal it obtained refund of the pre-deposit amount but the department delayed payment of statutory interest. The issue was whether Section 56 mandatorily requires interest on sanctioned refunds from the prescribed date. The court held authorities have no discretion to deny interest once refund is allowed under Section 54; Section 56 automatically triggers quantification and payment. Directions issued to compute and release due interest. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Relevant for appeal workflow and cash-flow planning after partial relief. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Interest runs from statutory dates even when refund of pre-deposit follows partial appellate success, protecting assessee cash flow.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.56 — Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
- CGST S.54 — Refund of tax, interest, or other amounts.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, CGST S.74. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue; matter remanded
Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Tvl Karthikeya Authentic Andhra Restaurant filed WP No. 31773 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; order 19 August 2026. Under Section 128A the petitioner paid the entire admitted tax before the notified cut-off but submitted the formal amnesty application after the prescribed deadline in Rule 164. The court affirmed the filing deadline is mandatory, not directory, which favoured revenue on strict timing. However, given full tax payment and revenue protection, an ex parte rejection was set aside and the case remanded for reconsideration after granting reasonable opportunity to be heard. Outcome: mixed—remand benefits assessee procedurally. Sections 128A and 50 contextualised interest waiver. CAs should calendar amnesty filing dates carefully. Not legal advice. Restaurants and SMEs should treat Rule 164 filing dates as hard deadlines separate from tax payment under Section 128A.
In favour of the assessee
Incompressible Fluid Control System v. Assistant Commissioner
Incompressible Fluid Control System filed before the Madras High Court; decision 28 July 2026. The assessee sought waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A where show-cause proceedings under Section 73 arose from belated filing of GSTR-3B and self-assessed tax shortfalls. Revenue argued Section 75(12)’s non obstante clause permitted direct recovery under Section 79, excluding such cases from amnesty. The court held that once liability is determined under Section 73, Section 128A remains available; Section 75(12) does not oust the waiver scheme for those proceedings. Rules 164 and Section 168 supported procedure. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Useful for mapping amnesty eligibility to the section under which demand is raised. Not legal advice. Belated GSTR-3B filers who face Section 73 notices may therefore explore 128A relief if other scheme conditions are satisfied.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Ayiswarya Polymers v. Assistant commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Ayiswarya Polymers filed WP No. 22814 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; order 25 June 2026 on Section 128A waiver. The assessee discharged the entire tax demand within the scheme timeline but mistakenly remitted a portion under the IGST head although no IGST liability existed on the notice. The department rejected waiver of interest and penalty solely for wrong head allocation despite full monetary compliance. The court held that substantial compliance with the demand should not be defeated by a clerical misclassification of payment head, and remanded the matter with opportunity to rectify head-wise payment. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Sections 128A, 73 and 77 were cited. CAs should verify payment heads under amnesty. Not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Jayashree Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Jayashree Enterprises filed WP No. 19835 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; judgment 17 June 2026. The department found ineligible input tax credit availed and utilised where declared ITC in GSTR-3B exceeded credits appearing in GSTR-2A. It imposed interest at twenty-four per cent from the date of utilisation until reversal, under the specific provision read with Rule 88B, rather than general Section 50 interest. The assessee argued cash payment later avoided utilisation-based interest. The court upheld the order: utilisation through the electronic credit ledger triggers the enhanced rate regardless of subsequent cash adjustment. Outcome: in favour of revenue. Section 50 contrasted with the special rule for ineligible credit. Summary for ITC reconciliation risk; not legal advice. Taxpayers should reverse ineligible ITC promptly to limit the utilisation-period interest exposure highlighted in this ruling.