While allowing GST refund claims of an essential oil manufacturer & exporter, the Allahabad High Court ruled that citation of a wrong provision or typographical error in submission of the GST forms is no basis for rejecting substantive claims or denying rights accruing to the petitioner-taxpayer, when there is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was entitled to CGST refund.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that when the application tendered by the petitioner (which is part of the Revenue’s records) had claimed a refund of CGST tax, the same cannot be denied simply because in the form for the tax refund, the amount was entered under an incorrect head, as the cause for such error is not relevant.
The Single Judge found that the appellate authority had neglected to consider the application filed by the petitioner, which contained the true nature of the amount claimed by the petitioner. Thus, failing to determine the controversy on merits, and by declining the claim on the technicality, the appellate authority has erred in law. The Bench, therefore, quashed the orders and remanded to the appellate authority for fresh determination.
In this case, the application filed by petitioner claiming refund of excess CGST paid, was declined, even though it was submitted that the excess tax amount was recorded under the heading of Integrated tax instead of Central tax in the form GST RFD-01, and the error occurred on account of a software glitch and not any incorrect typographical insertion made by petitioner.
Appearances:
Advocates Abhinav Mehrotra, Bhavna Mehrotra, and Satya Vrata Mehrotra, for the Appellant/ Taxpayer
Advocate Parv Agarwal, for the Respondent/ Department