Refund claims cannot be defeated by technical form errors or by findings on issues not put to notice.

A substantive refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the refund form mentioned the wrong tax head or contained a technical error, where entitlement on merits was undisputed; the technical rejection was therefore set aside. An adverse finding that the claimant failed to adduce evidence also could not stand because that deficiency was not put to notice in the show-cause proceedings, offending natural justice; that finding was quashed. The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a refund claim admittedly entitled on merits could be rejected merely because the refund form mentioned the wrong tax head or contained a technical error; (ii) Whether an adverse finding that the claimant failed to adduce evidence could be sustained when such deficiency was not put to notice in the show-cause proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a refund claim admittedly entitled on merits could be rejected merely because the refund form mentioned the wrong tax head or contained a technical error.

Analysis: The application before the competent authority disclosed a claim for refund of CGST, and the wrong entry in the refund form was treated as a technical mistake. The entitlement to refund was not in dispute, and a wrong head or typographical error in the form could not defeat the substantive claim. The controversy was required to be decided on merits by the competent authority.

Conclusion: The rejection on the technical ground was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether an adverse finding that the claimant failed to adduce evidence could be sustained when such deficiency was not put to notice in the show-cause proceedings.

Analysis: The adverse finding regarding failure to produce evidence travelled beyond the show-cause notice. Since the alleged deficiency was not specifically noticed to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded on that aspect, the finding offended the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The finding based on absence of evidence could not be sustained and was quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive refund claim cannot be defeated by a merely technical mistake in the refund form, and no adverse finding can be sustained on a ground not put to notice in the show-cause proceedings.

---