Court orders correct refund payment to petitioner's bank account, stresses accuracy in applications

M/s. Hardik Textiles Through Its Prop. Hardik Patel Versus State Of Gujarat

M/s. Hardik Textiles Through Its Prop. Hardik Patel Versus State Of Gujarat - 2022 (63) G. S. T. L. 185 (Guj.) 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.