Strict compliance for exemption refunds and finality of RT-12 assessments barred the refund claim.

A conditional exemption-based refund must be claimed in strict compliance with the prescribed procedure; a general RT-12 entry or ambiguous remark cannot substitute for the separate monthly statement required for verification and refund, so the refund claim failed. Refund arising from assessed RT-12 returns also cannot be entertained unless those assessments are first challenged and revised, and because no such challenge was made, the rejection of refund was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to refund under the conditional exemption notification despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and only an ambiguous reference in RT-12 returns; (ii) Whether refund could be granted when the RT-12 assessments had not been challenged or revised.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to refund under the conditional exemption notification despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and only an ambiguous reference in RT-12 returns.

Analysis: The exemption was a conditional refund-based notification and the prescribed procedure required a separate monthly statement to be filed before the proper officer for verification and refund. The appellant did not submit such statements. The Tribunal found that RT-12 returns could not be treated as a substitute for the specific procedure mandated by the notification, and the solitary cursory remark in one return did not amount to a clear claim for the exemption or compliance with the notification. Applying strict construction to exemption notifications, any doubt had to be resolved against the claimant.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption-based refund.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be granted when the RT-12 assessments had not been challenged or revised.

Analysis: The RT-12 returns had been assessed and were not challenged before any higher forum. The Tribunal held that refund arising from an assessment cannot be sanctioned unless the assessment itself is first appealed against and revised. Since that had not been done, the refund claim could not be entertained.

Conclusion: Refund could not be granted without challenging the assessed RT-12 returns.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the rejection of the refund claim was sustained on both procedural non-compliance and assessment finality grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A conditional exemption notification must be complied with strictly, and where refund arises from an assessment or self-assessment, the assessment must first be challenged and revised before refund can be sanctioned.

---