Refund under Notification 41/2012-ST cannot be denied merely for lack of recorded satisfaction by the sanctioning authority.

Refund claims under Notification No. 41/2012-ST could not be rejected solely because the Assistant Commissioner failed to record his satisfaction under paragraph 3(k) before sanctioning refund. The substantive conditions of the notification were not found to be unfulfilled by the claimant; the defect lay only in the Original Authority's omission to record the satisfaction required of it under the notification. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the Original Authority after recording the requisite satisfaction, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 were liable to be rejected solely because the Assistant Commissioner had not recorded his satisfaction under paragraph 3(k) before sanctioning the refund.

Analysis: The notification required the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to satisfy himself that the prescribed conditions were fulfilled before sanctioning refund. The record showed that the appellant had not been alleged to have failed in fulfilling the substantive conditions of the notification. The defect identified was confined to the Original Authority not recording its own satisfaction in the manner required by paragraph 3(k), which was a requirement cast on the authority and not on the assessee.

Conclusion: The refund could not be finally denied on that basis alone, and the matter required reconsideration by the Original Authority after recording the requisite satisfaction. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---