Hardik Textiles VS State Of Gujarat

The petitioner has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief from the situation where an eligible refund amount was mistakenly credited to a wrong account due to an error by the petitioner’s consultant. The petitioner asserts that this inadvertent mistake should not penalize them, and they are seeking the intervention of the court to rectify the error and ensure that the refund amount is disbursed to the correct account.

In the petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

* Issuance of appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents (presumably government authorities or agencies involved) to take necessary action.

* Disbursement of the eligible refund amount to the petitioner’s correct account, which is specified as Account No. 00211101004059 with The Mehsana Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

The petitioner emphasizes that the error leading to the refund being credited to the wrong account was unintentional and was due to the mistake made by their consultant. They argue that they should not bear any penalty or loss due to this error and seek the court’s intervention to ensure that they receive the refund rightfully owed to them.

This petition under Article 226 highlights the petitioner’s plea for justice and corrective action to rectify the administrative mistake that has affected their financial interests.

The petitioner has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief from an issue arising due to an inadvertent mistake made by their consultant. The core grievance is that a refund amount, rightfully belonging to the petitioner, was mistakenly credited to the wrong bank account. The petitioner contends that this error should not penalize them, and they seek appropriate action from the court to rectify the situation.

In the petition, the prayers sought are as follows:

1. Issuance of appropriate writs, orders, or directions to the respondents (presumably tax authorities or relevant officials) to take corrective action and disburse the eligible refund amount to the petitioner’s correct account, specifically identified as Account No. 00211101004059 with The Mehsana Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

2. Granting of any other relief that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

3. Awarding costs incurred in relation to this application to be paid by the respondents.

The petitioner, engaged in the manufacturing business, claims entitlement to a refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 54(3) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The basis of their claim is rooted in these provisions, which allow businesses to seek refunds of excess input taxes paid.

The petition emphasizes that the error leading to the incorrect crediting of the refund amount was due to the consultant’s inadvertent mistake, implying that the petitioner itself should not bear the consequences of this error. Therefore, the petitioner urges the court to intervene and direct the authorities to remedy the situation promptly by redirecting the refund amount to the correct bank account.

Overall, the petition under Article 226 seeks judicial intervention to rectify an administrative error that has resulted in financial implications for the petitioner, arguing for fairness and justice in the handling of their rightful refund entitlement under the GST Acts.

The petitioner has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief due to an inadvertent error made by their GST consultant, resulting in a refund of tax credits being credited to the wrong bank account. The petitioner, a manufacturer, is entitled to claim refunds under both the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The consultant appointed by the petitioner, Mr. Patel, handled the entire process of filing the GST refund application (Form GST RFD-01) for the period spanning August 2018 to February 2020.

The issue arose when despite the refund being processed and a payment order (RFD-05) being issued by respondent no. 3 on 28th September 2020, the credited amount did not reflect in the petitioner’s designated account at The Mehsana Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. Upon discovering this discrepancy, the petitioner’s consultant verified the details through the online portal.

As a result, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs from the court:

1. Directing the respondents to rectify the error and credit the eligible refund amount (which was mistakenly credited to another account) into the petitioner’s correct account (Account No. 00211101004059 with The Mehsana Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd).

2. Issuing any other writs, orders, or directions that the court deems appropriate in the interest of justice.

3. Granting costs and expenses incurred in pursuing this legal recourse to be borne by the respondents.

The petitioner contends that the mistake leading to the misallocation of the refund was solely due to the error committed by their GST consultant, Mr. Patel. They assert that penalizing the petitioner for the consultant’s inadvertent error would be unjust, and thus seek the intervention of the court to rectify the situation promptly.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: