HC Rules GST Interest on Delayed Returns Cannot Be Waived
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 27 June, 2026

Case Details: Commissioner of Central Tax vs. Sadguru Infratech (P.) Ltd. - [2026] 187 taxmann.com 789 (Karnataka)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vibhu Bakhru, CJ. & K.S. Hemalekha, J.
- Neeralgi Jeevanbabu Jagadish, Adv. for the Appellant.
- Naveen G.S., Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The respondent-assessee had filed GST returns belatedly for the relevant tax periods, pursuant to which the jurisdictional officer under CGST issued ASMT-10 proposing the levy of interest on the delayed payment of tax and subsequently initiated garnishee proceedings by issuing DRC-13 to the respondent-assessee’s banker for the recovery of the dues. The Single Judge directed that the respondent-assessee be permitted to file or amend returns without insisting upon payment of interest, penalty or adherence to limitation, restrained coercive recovery for six months, and further directed segregation of pre-GST and post-GST works, computation of post-GST liability after allowing ITC. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that liability to pay interest on delayed payment of GST under Sections 39, 50, 79 and 128 of the CGST Act and the Karnataka GST Act arises by operation of law and cannot be waived, reduced or suspended in the absence of a specific statutory provision. It was observed that the directions permitting filing or amendment of returns without insisting on interest, penalty or limitation were contrary to the statutory framework and therefore unsustainable. The Court further held that any claim for reimbursement of additional GST liability arising from contracts executed before the introduction of GST was purely an inter se contractual dispute between the contracting parties, and contractual terms could not modify or override the statutory provisions governing levy. Accordingly, the impugned directions granting waiver of statutory liabilities were set aside.
List of Cases Referred to
- Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka [2024] 158 taxmann.com 443 (Karnataka) (para 6)
- Pratibha Processors v. Union of India [1996] 1996 taxmann.com 72 (SC) (para 10)
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA