2021 (12) TMI 1225 - HC - GST

Refund - amount which was credited in the wrong account due to inadvertent mistake - refund of accumulated ITC as per Section 54(3) - mistakenly the consultant had given the bank account details of another client and thus, the details entered in the petitioner s GST is of one third party wrongly - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that due to the mistake of the consultant engaged by the petitioner, the amount has been deposited in the wrong account. The bank details are to be entered under RFD-05. The petitioner also did not raise the grievance immediately and made an application with reference to the said issue after nearly three months. The amount which had gone to the wrong account of M/s. Meet Textiles had been refunded on 09.12.2020 by way of DRC-03 under Section 73(5) by way of voluntary payment. The Deputy State Tax Commissioner Circle-16, Surat vide its communications dated 21.01.2021 and 11.02.2021 had requested the Joint Commissioner of State Tax E-governance, Gujarat State to resolve the peculiar issue on hand. It emerges that second time when the application had been made by the petitioner, the rejection has come as there is a technical glitch. Even by specifying that the refund is being claimed under the head others the system has not permitted the amount to be given by way of refund to the petitioner. Undoubtedly, it was a mistake which was committed by the consultant of the petitioner and therefore, the third party namely M/s. Meet Textiles had been benefited where the amount had been deposited - The amount once again has gone back to the authority by way of DRC-03 on 09.12.2020, hence, the only way out now for availing the legitimate claim of the petitioner is by depositing the amount in his account which he has mentioned. Let the same be done as the application has already been made. No further application will be necessary at a manual level. The officer concerned shall apply the mind and the deposit shall go directly in the account of the petitioner - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligible refund amount credited to wrong account due to consultant's mistake.
2. Petitioner seeking appropriate writ for disbursement of refund.
3. Technical glitch leading to rejection of refund application.
4. Resolution of refund issue and direction for crediting the correct account.

Issue 1:
The petitioner, seeking relief under Article 226, claimed that the eligible refund amount was mistakenly credited to another account due to the consultant's error. The consultant had filed the GST refund application with incorrect bank details, resulting in the amount being deposited in a different account.

Issue 2:
The petitioner requested appropriate orders for the disbursement of the eligible refund amount to their correct account with a specific bank. The prayers included seeking writs, directions, and costs to be borne by the respondents, emphasizing the need for justice in the matter.

Issue 3:
The rejection of the refund application was attributed to a technical glitch in the system, preventing the correct allocation of the refund amount to the petitioner. Despite subsequent applications and attempts to rectify the error, the system did not permit the refund due to the initial mistake made by the consultant.

Issue 4:
The Court acknowledged the inadvertent error by the consultant, leading to the refund being credited to the wrong account. The judgment directed the authorities to credit the refund amount to the petitioner's correct account without further manual applications. The resolution was to be completed within a specified time frame to prevent interest accrual.

In the detailed analysis, the Court noted the petitioner's entitlement to the refund under GST laws and the consultant's crucial role in filing the application with erroneous bank details. The respondent's acknowledgment of the technical issue and the need for a fresh application highlighted the complexity arising from the initial mistake. The Court intervened to ensure the rightful disbursement of the refund to the petitioner's designated bank account, emphasizing the lack of fault on the petitioner's part and the necessity to rectify the error promptly.

This judgment underscores the importance of accurate information submission in refund applications and the responsibility of consultants in handling such crucial details. The Court's decision to direct the authorities to resolve the issue promptly and credit the refund amount to the correct account showcases a fair and just approach to rectifying inadvertent errors in financial transactions.