By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 20, 2014: THE Petitioner is holder of Service Tax Registration for providing taxable services, particularly, financial services. The Petitioner availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services used in or in relation to provision of taxable output services. Since the services rendered by the Petitioner qualify as export, they are not liable to service tax. The CENVAT credit availed by the Petitioner remains unutilized. The law provides for refund of such unutilized CENVAT credit on account of export of output services.

The Petitioner claimed refund but the Deputy Commissioner rejected the same.

Against this rejection, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition and pleads that the order be quashed and set aside.

It is submitted that similar exercise was carried out by the department earlier and the High Court in its writ jurisdiction was pleased to quash and set aside the order and direct reconsideration of the refund claim. That refund claim pertained to the period April, 2012 to June, 2012 and July, 2012 to September, 2012 whereas the present Writ Petition pertains to an identical refund claim, but for the period October, 2012 to December, 2012 .

It is prayed that the refund claim could not have been rejected in the manner done by the Respondent; that the order is clearly vitiated in law; that the Respondent is bent on passing similar orders although he was aware that the orders passed by him earlier and taking such view were quashed and set aside by this Court.

The High Court observed that the respondent had rejected the claim for refund adopting identical reasoning and although the High Court on earlier occasion had directed the respondent to consider the refund applications in accordance with the law laid down by the Court the refund claims have been considered not taking into account individual facts and circumstances, but by applying some general rule.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the refund claim, the High Court quashed and set aside the order and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax to consider the refund claim afresh in accordance with the law and pass a fresh order within four weeks.

The Writ petition was disposed of.

In passing : Order passed in WP 2612/2014 is dated 21.03.2014. The order passed by the Dy. Commr. is dated 24.02.2014.

(See 2014-TIOL-769-HC-MUM-ST )