Refund denial for alleged procedural lapse set aside where submission of AR3A forms required fresh factual reconsideration.

Refund denial based on alleged procedural non-compliance and non-fulfilment of notification conditions was found unsupported where the assessee stated that all AR3A forms had been filed with the refund claim and repeated that assertion in subsequent correspondence. The record did not show proper consideration of that factual claim, leaving the basis for partial rejection unclear. The matter therefore required fresh examination of whether the AR3A forms had in fact been submitted, and the impugned order was set aside with remand to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be denied for alleged non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and whether the matter required reconsideration in view of the assessee's assertion that all AR3A forms were submitted.

Analysis: The denial of refund was founded on alleged failure to follow the prescribed procedure and non-fulfilment of conditions under the notification and rules. The record showed that the assessee had claimed to have submitted all 144 AR3A forms along with the refund application and reiterated the same by subsequent correspondence. In these circumstances, the basis for partial rejection was found unclear and the authority below was found not to have taken cognizance of the assessee's claim regarding submission of all relevant forms. The matter therefore required fresh consideration on the factual aspect of submission of the AR3A forms.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.

---