Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, 2017 – Manual application for Refund —-- The petitioner sought direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus for setting aside the communication of the respondent dated 26-2-2021 and directing the Respondent to permit the Petitioner to rectify the details of the recipient of the services in the form GSTR-1 or to refund the sum to the petitioner. Because of an inadvertent mistake committed in the tax periods, the actual recipient of services was not able to claim the credit. The petitioner counsel submitted that the mistake was realised only in May, 2020 and thereafter several attempts were made to rectify the mistake but in vain. The petitioner represented to the respondent, who vide communication intimated to follow the circular dated 18.11.2019. The court observed that when Rule 97A permits manual filing, restriction in Circular, dated 18.11.2019, seeking refund by electronic mode only may not be proper. The amounts that were paid by the petitioner furnishing the incorrect details cannot be taken as a tax due to the respondents, legally. The respondents cannot contend that the claim, if any, of the petitioner, is barred by limitation. In the light of the constitutional bench decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries, one cannot enrich themselves under Section 72 of the Contract Act and they are bound to return the amounts which were paid wrongfully. The petitioner cannot be compelled to follow the Circular.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the communication dated 26.02.2021, and directed the petitioner to make an application in manual form for refund of the amount to which he is entitled to and the respondents are directed to pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks.