Substantive refund benefit cannot be denied for procedural non-compliance where retrospective approval made earlier claim impossible.

A second refund claim for the same quarter under the Rent-a-Cab Service refund notification could not be rejected merely because a prior quarterly claim had already been filed. The notification was aimed at regulating the refund process and preventing multiple claims, not at defeating an otherwise admissible refund. Where the service was approved later with retrospective effect from the relevant date, the claimant could not have included it in the earlier claim, and the later claim arose from circumstances beyond its control. The substantive refund benefit was therefore held payable because no prejudice was shown and entitlement under the notification was otherwise established.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second refund claim for the same quarter, filed in respect of Rent-a-Cab Service after subsequent approval of the service with retrospective effect, could be denied on the ground that the notification contemplated quarterly refund claims and the appellant had already filed one claim for that quarter.

Analysis: The refund notification was intended to regulate the manner of claiming refund and to avoid multiplicity of claims, not to defeat an otherwise admissible refund. The service in question was approved later with retrospective effect from the relevant date, so the appellant could not have included it in the earlier claim. In such circumstances, the later claim was beyond the appellant's control. A substantive exemption or refund benefit available under the notification cannot be refused merely for breach of a procedural requirement when no prejudice is shown and the entitlement is otherwise established.

Conclusion: The second refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of prior quarterly filing, and the denial was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund relief was granted to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive refund benefits under a notification cannot be denied for non-compliance with a procedural condition when the claimant was otherwise entitled to the benefit and the later claim arose from circumstances beyond its control.

---