- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC to Centre: Verify and pay Bharti Airtel’s Rs 923 cr GST refund claim
In a relief to telecom major Bharti Airtel, the Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to verify the company’s claim of excess GST of Rs. 923 crore within two weeks and refund the amount once verified.Bharti Airtel alleged that there was excess payment of taxes, by way of cash, to the tune of around Rs. 923 crores.“This was occasioned to a great degree due to non-operationalization of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
In a relief to telecom major Bharti Airtel, the Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to verify the company’s claim of excess GST of Rs. 923 crore within two weeks and refund the amount once verified.
Bharti Airtel alleged that there was excess payment of taxes, by way of cash, to the tune of around Rs. 923 crores.
“This was occasioned to a great degree due to non-operationalization of Forms GSTR-2A, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 and the system related checks which could have forewarned the petitioner about the mistake. Petitioner now desires to correct its returns, but is being prevented from doing so, as there is no enabling statutory procedure implemented by the Government,” said the judgement copy.
“We also direct the Respondents that on filing of the rectified Form GSTR-3B, they shall, within a period of two weeks, verify the claim made therein and give effect to the same once verified,” the High Court said.
Rajat Mohan, Senior Partner at AMRG & Associates said that the Delhi High Court has permitted the petitioner to avail additional tax credit by allowing rectification of Form GSTR-3B for the period to which the error relates, July to September, 2017.
“The petitioner alleged that there is an additional payment of taxes to the tune of Rs. 923 crores and such additional credit is expected to adversely impact the tax collections for the current month. This ruling would help give respite to many taxpayers who are unable to file for rectification of previously filed tax returns,” he said. The court order said that the refund of excess cash balance in terms of Section 49 (6) read with Section 54 of the CGST Act does not effectively redress the petitioner’s grievance. Therefore, the only remedy that can enable the petitioner to enjoy the benefit of the seamless utilization of the input tax credit is by way of rectification of its annual return, GSTR-3B, it added.