2013 (3) TMI 22 - HC - Service Tax

Refund claim - appellant submitted that various similar refund claims filed by the petitioner for the period from June, 2009 to March, 2010 have been allowed by the A.O. and even the Commissioner (Appeals) has held to the effect that the petitioner is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit and entitled to claim refund of tax paid on the services enlisted therein, the A.O. has failed to record any reasons as to why he differs with the aforesaid decision of the A.O./Commissioner (A) and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Held that - The conduct of the A.O. in arriving at a conclusion that the certificate issued by the C.A. is false, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner and without assigning any reasons, clearly shows that the A.O. is biased against the petitioner and bent upon rejecting the claim of the petitioner without even considering the merits of the claim put forth by the petitioner. - matter remanded back for fresh decision on merit.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim for the period from April 2011 to June 2011 due to lack of reasons provided by assessing officer, discrepancy in documents, and biased conduct of the assessing officer.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their refund claim for the period from April 2011 to June 2011. The petitioner argued that despite previous similar refund claims being allowed, the assessing officer (A.O.) failed to provide reasons for disagreeing with those decisions. The petitioner contended that the impugned order lacked justification and should be quashed and set aside.

2. The revenue, on the other hand, argued that the writ petition should not be entertained due to the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal. Additionally, the revenue claimed that the petitioner failed to produce additional documents despite opportunities given. The A.O. cited a discrepancy in the Chartered Accountant (C.A.) certificate and petitioner's documents, leading to the rejection of the claim.

3. The court referred to a previous case where it was established that if the A.O. fails to provide reasons for disagreeing with past decisions, a writ petition can be entertained to prevent injustice. In the present case, the A.O. did not provide any reasons for differing with earlier decisions despite the petitioner's arguments. The A.O. also drew adverse inferences without considering reconciliation statements submitted by the petitioner.

4. The court found that the A.O.'s conduct, including rejecting the claim without proper consideration, indicated bias and prejudice against the petitioner. It was emphasized that a judicial officer must act with an open mind and impartially. Due to the A.O.'s biased conduct, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be reassigned to a different competent officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

5. The court made the rule absolute with no order as to costs, highlighting the importance of fair and unbiased decision-making in matters of tax refund claims. The judgment emphasized the need for assessing officers to provide clear reasons for their decisions and act impartially to prevent miscarriage of justice.