Facts of the Case

This is not a GST case on the merits — it is a fund-recovery dispute between the petitioner, Vishal Kumar Arya, and ICICI Bank Limited, in which the GST Authority was impleaded only because the account into which the disputed money landed had been frozen by it. The petitioner sought a direction upon Karur Vysya Bank Limited (respondent no.2) to remit Rs.16 lakh to him from an account standing in the name of the fourth respondent. On 28.09.2022, the petitioner had intended to transfer Rs.16 lakh to an account of M/s Geeta Creation but inadvertently selected the account of one Ganpati Traders instead, and the sum was credited there. It was undisputed that the GST Authorities had already frozen Ganpati Traders' bank account (to which the money had gone) in connection with their own proceedings against that entity. The matter was heard on 22.05.2023 by the Calcutta High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Court could direct the second respondent bank to remit the mistakenly transferred sum of Rs.16 lakh to the petitioner.
  2. Whether the GST Authority's action of freezing the recipient account could be examined or interfered with in this writ petition.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner did not intend to transfer any amount to Ganpati Traders; he had inadvertently selected the wrong account while intending to pay M/s Geeta Creation, and the bank should be directed to correct this and remit the amount to him.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for the GST Authority and the bank pointed out that the account statement itself showed the transfer had, in fact, been made to Ganpati Traders' account, and that the GST department had already frozen that account pursuant to its own proceedings, independent of this dispute.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that it was undisputed the petitioner's own selection had resulted in Rs.16 lakh being credited to Ganpati Traders' account on 28.09.2022.
  • Since the GST Authorities had frozen the Ganpati Traders account, and that freezing action could not be challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition (he was not a party to those proceedings and had not challenged the freeze order), no direction could be issued to the bank to remit the amount.
  • The writ petition was disposed of granting no relief to the petitioner, who was left free to pursue his remedies in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

Where funds are mistakenly transferred into a bank account that is independently frozen under GST enforcement action, a court will not direct release of those funds in a writ petition that does not itself challenge the freezing order — the person seeking release must pursue the appropriate remedy against the freeze itself, or a civil remedy against the party unjustly enriched.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — provisional attachment/freezing of bank accounts (referenced only incidentally as the basis for the account freeze; not examined on merits)

Decision – In Favour of

No relief was granted to the petitioner; the writ petition was disposed of without directing remittance of the funds, leaving the petitioner free to pursue other remedies. This is a fund-recovery dispute, not a decision on any GST issue.

Case Details

High Court at Calcutta | WPA 9663 of 2023 | Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya | Date: 22.05.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.