9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cations 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is the case of the Petitioner that the business that it carries on is known to the Department. The Petitioner is a company and holder of Service Tax Registration for providing taxable services and particularly financial services referred to in paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition. It is the case of the Petitioner that the services rendered and in most cases do not attract any service tax. The Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim for the period April, 2012 to June, 2012 and July, 2012 to September, 2012. Against the said rejection of refund claim, the Writ Petition was filed in this Court being Writ Petition No.2612/2014. Annexure B to the Writ Petition is a copy of the order passed on that Writ Petition on 21.03.2014 whereunder the Competent Authority was directed to scrutinize and verify the refund claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 adopting identical reasonings. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
