Priti Poddar vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Facts
The writ petitioner, Priti Poddar, mistakenly transferred Rs. 22,91,000/- to the account of Castle Distributors Private Limited (respondent No. 7) through RTGS from her account with Bank of Baroda (respondent No. 5). Respondent No. 7, by a letter dated 18th October 2019, confirmed the transfer was a mistake and no sums were due. However, GST Authorities in New Delhi had ordered a debit freeze on respondent No. 7's accounts during an investigation. Subsequently, by an email dated 9th January 2020, the GST Authorities clarified they had no objection to refunding the sum to the writ petitioner if the High Court ordered it. Despite notice, the GST Authorities were not represented.
Held
The Court held that given the confirmation from respondent No. 7 that the transfer was a mistake and no sums were due, and crucially, the GST Authorities' communication stating they had no objection to the refund if the High Court ordered it, the Court could direct the reversal and transmission of the funds. The reasoning was that the GST Authorities' investigation did not pertain to the petitioner's funds but to respondent No. 7's accounts, and they had effectively waived their objection to the release of this specific mistaken amount. The Court directed the 6th respondent, HDFC Bank Limited, to reverse and transmit the sum of Rs. 22,91,000/- to the writ petitioner's account with Bank of Baroda forthwith. The writ petition was disposed of as nothing further remained to be adjudicated.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court can direct the reversal and transmission of funds mistakenly transferred, despite a debit freeze ordered by GST Authorities, given their stated no-objection to the refund conditional on a High Court order? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the transfer was a clear mistake, evidenced by respondent No. 7's letter. She sought the return of her funds, relying on the GST Authorities' email indicating no objection to a refund if ordered by the Court. The petitioner implicitly sought the Court's intervention to overcome the debit freeze for the mistaken amount. Revenue/State's argument: The GST Authorities were not represented, and no arguments were recorded on their behalf.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 Court No.13 Item No.10 AP WPA 14813 of 2021 Priti Poddar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Through Video Conference) Mr. Rupak Ghosh Mr. Ratul Das Mr. Abhijit Sarkar … for the petitioner. Mr. Subhas Chandra Sarkar … for the HDFC Bank. Mr. Dipanjan Datta … for the BOB. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by reason of a mistake in name, a sum of Rs.22,91,000/- was mistakenly transferred by RTGS to the account of Castle Distributors Private Limited being respondent No.7 with the respondent No.
The transfer occurred from the account of the writ petitioner with the Bank of Baroda being the respondent No.
The respondent No.7 has by a letter in writing dated 18th October 2019 indicated that the transfer was indeed a mistake and that there is no sums due and payable by the writ petitioner to them. It is submitted, however, that the GST Authorities at New Delhi had in course of investigation of the accounts of the Respondent No.7 had ordered debit freeze. By a communication stated to have been made by the GST Authorities by email dated 9th January 2020, it has 2 been clarified that the authorities do not have any obj
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.