Service tax refund cannot be denied for a clerical defect in bills when substantive refund conditions are otherwise met.

Refund of service tax could not be denied merely for non-compliance with a technical documentary requirement where the record otherwise showed receipt of the taxable services, payment of tax by the service provider, and use of the services for export of goods. Missing stamp or registration particulars on some bills was treated as a clerical lapse and not a failure of the substantive refund conditions. The documentary defect did not override the factual proof supporting the claim, so denial of refund was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax was liable to be denied for want of strict technical compliance with the documentary requirements in the refund notifications and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Analysis: The refund claim was otherwise supported by evidence showing that the taxable services had been received, tax had been paid by the service provider, and the services were used for export of goods. The missing stamp or registration particulars on some bills was treated as a clerical lapse, not as a failure of the substantive conditions for refund. The documentary defect did not displace the factual findings that the services were specified, tax was discharged, and export was proved.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected merely on the basis of a technical or clerical defect in the bills, and the denial of refund was unsustainable.

---