TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to approach this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the eligible refund amount which was credited in the wrong account due to inadvertent mistake of the petitioner's consultant should not penalize the petitioner. 2. The prayers sought for are as follow: - "(a) Issue appropriate writ/order/direction for respondents to take appropriate action in this regard and disburse the amount of eligible Refund to the petitioner's account i.e. Account No. 00211101004059 with The Mehsana Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. (b) To issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) or any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice; (c) To award costs of and incidental to this appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... October, 2020, this mistake was rectified and the amount sent to M/s. Meet Textiles has gone back to the Government's account through DRC-03 on 09.12.2020. 3.4. The request made for finding out the solution and providing the guidance had not been responded to. The petitioner since was left with no remedy, he once again approached for the fresh refund application and there the reason for claim of refund was mentioned "any other". The said application moved alongwith the supporting documents on 07.02.2021 also has not been positively responded. 3.5. The second time rejection of the application dated 07.02.2021 has come on 25.03.2021 and this has driven the petitioner to this Court with the prayers as mentioned hereinabove. 4. The affidavi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner 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. 7. 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. 8. The amount once again has gone back to the....