Court dismisses refund petitions under Service Tax Notification No. 39/2012-S.T., emphasizing appeal process and notification compliance.

The Court disposed of the writ petitions seeking refunds under Service Tax Notification No.39/2012-S.T., emphasizing the availability of an alternate remedy through appeal and the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to Article 226 relief. The rejection of refund claims and imposition of penalties were upheld due to non-compliance with notification conditions. The Court directed the petitioner to challenge the orders before the appellate authority, allowing all grounds, including delay condonation, to be addressed in the appeal. The writ petitions were ultimately disposed of, leaving questions open for the appellate authority's consideration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund claims under Service Tax Notification No.39/2012-S.T.
2. Rejection of refund claims and imposition of penalty.
3. Compliance with conditions of the notification.
4. Availability of alternate remedy through appeal.
5. Application of Satyawati Tandon and K.C. Mathew cases.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitions involved seeking refunds under Service Tax for specific periods based on Notification No.39/2012-S.T. issued by the Central Government.

2. The respondent rejected the refund claims and imposed penalties for filing ineligible claims under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. The rejection was primarily due to non-compliance with the conditions of the notification, especially regarding the requirement to file a declaration prior to the date of export service.

4. The Court considered the availability of an alternate remedy through an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals-II) and emphasized that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a rule of compulsion but discretion.

5. Referring to the Satyawati Tandon and K.C. Mathew cases, the Court highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226, especially in matters involving recovery of public dues or fiscal laws.

6. Given the factual disputes and the availability of an effective alternate remedy through an appeal, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders before the appellate authority.

7. The Court clarified that all grounds raised in the writ petitions can be addressed in the appeal, including seeking condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

8. Ultimately, both writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the petitioner to pursue the available appellate remedy, leaving all questions open for consideration by the appellate authority.

---