If the petitioner was otherwise eligible to refund, on the ground of technical glitches and error having occurred due to auto-population, the petitioner ought not to be denied relief. The petitioner's claim for refund on CGST and IGST cannot be denied on the ground that his claim got consolidated under one head of SGST.
Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 – Refund – The petitioner had made zero rated sales during the months October 2017, November 2017 and February 2018 and accordingly they submitted refund claim. But at the time of filing application they made entire claim under the Head of SGST alone. The respondent restricted the refund claim to the extent of the petitioner's liability for the respective months only under the head of SGST and rejected the refund claims made in respect of the other heads. The respondents counsel submitted that respondent considered the claim of refund made by the petitioner under the head of SGST and finding that the refund claim was available only to a limited extent and granted relief to that extent. The court observed that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that supporting invoices furnished by the assessee are found to be in order and the documents furnished as proof of exports were verified and they are found to be in order. Therefore, if due to error on the part of any software in GSTN, this error had occurred, the petitioner cannot be expected to produce proof for the same. The petitioner had submitted the refund applications manually also. On the ground of technical glitches and error having occurred due to auto-population, the petitioner ought not to be denied relief.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order orders to the extent rejection of the refund claim of the petitioner made under CGST and IGST. The matter is remitted to the respondent, who will verify if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for refund. If he is satisfied, refund will be made to the petitioner herein, within a period of eight weeks.