Sumit Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to interest on the rejected refund amount. The reasoning was based on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents (CGST Delhi North) which clearly stated that due to technical glitches, Form PMT-03 was not properly reflected, preventing the amount from being credited to the Petitioner. The Court acknowledged that the refund was ultimately made during the pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, in accordance with the law, interest is liable to be paid to the Petitioner. The Court directed that the interest be processed and sanctioned to the Petitioner within a period of two months. All rights and remedies of the Petitioner were left open. The petition was disposed of.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sumit Gupta, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents (Union of India and others) to re-credit a rejected refund amount of INR 2,77,501/- into his electronic credit ledger, along with interest. The Petitioner had filed refund applications for periods July 2019 to March 2021. One application was partially sanctioned, with INR 38,991/- rejected. A subsequent application for INR 2,38,510/- was also rejected. The Petitioner's repeated requests for re-crediting were not acceded to. The respondents, in their counter affidavit filed by Assistant Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, stated that technical glitches prevented the proper reflection of Form PMT-03, which was subsequently issued on September 27, 2023. The Court noted that the refund was ultimately made during the pendency of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to re-credit of the rejected refund amount into his electronic credit ledger, along with interest, considering the respondents' admission of technical glitches leading to the delay in processing the refund and the subsequent issuance of Form PMT-03 during the pendency of the writ petition. The Petitioner argued that the refund was rejected due to technical issues and that the amount should be re-credited. The Petitioner also contended that the refund was ultimately made during the pendency of the writ petition, making the question of voluntary deposit irrelevant. The Respondents, through their counter-affidavit, acknowledged technical issues that led to the delay in issuing Form PMT-03, which was later rectified. The Respondents also sought time to address submissions regarding the voluntary deposit of interest.