Order dated 01 August 2025 
Parties: Bharat Mint & Aroma Chemicals v. Union of India & Ors.

Facts -

• The petitioner filed a refund claim for excess CGST paid on intra-state supply, later treated as inter-state. However, the claim was filed under the wrong tax head (IGST) due to a software glitch. The appellate authority rejected the refund on two grounds: wrong head under RFD-01 and lack of supporting evidence. 
• The petitioner contended that the error was technical and not substantive, and that no opportunity was given to explain or correct it.

Issue –

• Whether a refund claim under Section 77 of the CGST Act can be denied merely due to incorrect entry in the refund application (RFD-01)?

Order -

• The single bench of the Hon’ble High court held that Citation of a wrong provision or typographical error in the forms submitted along with the application cannot be the basis for rejecting the substantive claims of the petitioner or denying rights accruing to the petitioner. 
• The appellate authority neglected to consider the application filed by the petitioner containing the true nature of the amount claimed by the petitioner. 
• The aforesaid claims have to be adjudicated on merits by the competent authority. By failing to determine the controversy on merits, and by declining the claim on the aforesaid technicality the appellate authority has erred in law.