State of Jharkhand & Ors Vs BLA Infrastructure Private Limited
Date: January 8, 2026
Subject Matter
Refund of Statutory Pre-deposit Governed by Sections 107(6) and 115, Not Section 54
Summary
The Supreme Court has disposed of the appeal, clarifying that the refund of a statutory pre-deposit made for a successful appeal is governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court set aside the High Court's erroneous interpretation of Section 54 in this context.
Summary of Facts and Dispute:
- Impugned Action: The High Court interpreted Section 54 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for granting a refund of a statutory pre-deposit made for an appeal.
- Petitioner's Argument: The State of Jharkhand contended that the refund relating to the statutory pre-deposit, made for a successful appeal, falls under Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017, and not Section 54.
- Core Question of Law: Whether the refund of a statutory pre-deposit, made for maintaining an appeal that was subsequently successful, is to be processed under Section 54 or Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Key Legal Issues & Findings:
Interpretation of Refund Provisions for Statutory Pre-deposit
The Supreme Court concurred with the learned senior counsel for the State of Jharkhand.
- Applicable Provision: The Court found that the subject refund was relatable to Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017.
- High Court Error: The High Court's exercise of interpreting Section 54 of the Act in this specific context was deemed unnecessary and erroneous.
- Clarification: The Court explicitly clarified the position that Section 54 was not the correct provision for such refunds.
Ruling:
- Outcome: The appeal is disposed of, and the High Court's interpretation of Section 54 of the Act in this context is set aside.
- Directions: The amount to be refunded to the respondent shall be refunded with interest thereon in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.
- Liberty: The respondent retains the liberty to seek reopening of the matter if the order has any adverse impact on them.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We are of the opinion that it would not be necessary to issue notice and put the respondent on notice in view of the order that we propose to pass – an order which would have no adverse impact upon the respondent. In the event it does have any such effect, it would be open to the respondent to seek reopening of this matter.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand states that the refund to be made to the respondent in relation to the statutory pre-deposit made by it for maintaining the appeal, in which it thereafter succeeded, would be under the provisions of Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171, and not under Section 54 thereof. He would, therefore, state that the High Court was in error in interpreting Section 54 thereof in that context and granting relief pursuant to such exercise.
We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel that the subject refund was relatable to Section 107(6) read with Section 115 of the Jharkhand GST Act, and to that extent, the exercise undertaken by the High Court with regard to Section 54 thereof was unnecessary.
Making that position clear and setting aside the exercise of interpretation of Section 54 of the Act undertaken in that context, the appeal is disposed of.
In the light of this order, the amount to be refunded to the respondent shall be refunded with interest thereon in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Notes:
1“Jharkhand GST Act”, for short