2014 (5) TMI 653 - HC - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - Refund claim pertains to unutilized CENVAT Credit - for the period October, 2012 to December, 2012 - Held that - In fact what we have noted was that despite this Court s order directing the Respondent No.3 to consider the refund applications in accordance with the law laid down by this Court, the refund applications have been considered not taking into account individual facts and circumstances, but by applying some general rule. In fact the findings recorded at page 39 and which are part of the impugned order would indicate that there are some general observations and conclusions recorded. They are not making reference to a particular refund claim and which was before the Respondent No.3. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. - Matter remanded back - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim by Respondent No.3 for the period October to December 2012
- Allegation of Respondent No.3 passing similar orders despite previous orders being quashed
- Failure to consider individual facts and circumstances in rejecting refund claim
- Petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order

Analysis:
The Writ Petition sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the order passed by Respondent No.3 rejecting the refund claim for the period October to December 2012. The Petitioner, a company providing financial services, claimed that its services qualified as exports and were not liable to service tax. The Petitioner had availed CENVAT credit, which remained unutilized, leading to a refund claim. The Respondent No.3 rejected the refund application, prompting the Petitioner to file the Writ Petition. The Court noted that a similar exercise had previously resulted in the order being quashed and directed reconsideration of the refund claim. The Court found that the Respondent No.3 had rejected the claim for refund based on general observations without considering individual facts and circumstances, as directed by the Court in a previous order.

The Court, after perusing the Writ Petition and hearing arguments from both sides, decided not to express an opinion on the merits of the refund claim but found the rejection by Respondent No.3 to be unjust. Despite the Court's previous order directing the consideration of refund applications based on specific circumstances, the Respondent No.3 had again applied a general rule in rejecting the claim. The Court concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained due to the failure to consider individual facts and circumstances. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 24.02.2014 and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the refund claim afresh on its merits and in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs awarded.