Service tax refund claims: quarterly filing is procedural, while the one-year limitation is the substantive requirement.

Refund of service tax under Notification No. 12/2013-ST could not be denied solely because the claim for one quarter was not filed in a quarter-wise format. The one-year period prescribed for filing the refund claim was the substantive condition and had to be strictly met, while the requirement to file one application for each quarter was only procedural and meant to aid departmental scrutiny. Since the application was filed within one year from the date of payment of tax, the procedural lapse did not justify rejection. The refund claim was therefore allowed with consequential refund benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 could be denied merely because the claim for one quarter was not filed on a quarter-wise basis, when it was otherwise filed within the prescribed one-year period from the date of payment.

Analysis: Paragraph III(e) of the notification prescribes the limitation period for filing a refund claim, while paragraph III(f) requires filing of one refund application for every quarter. The time limit in paragraph III(e) is the substantive requirement for claiming refund and must be strictly complied with. The quarterly filing requirement in paragraph III(f) is only procedural and intended to facilitate departmental scrutiny and processing. Where the refund application was filed within one year from the date of payment of service tax, non-compliance with the quarterly format alone could not justify rejection of the claim.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was not justified, and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee with consequential refund benefit.

---