IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the prospective effect of the amendment to the Finance Act 1994 and the importance of adhering to the prescribed form and time limit for refund applications.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following prayers :

“(i) To issue the writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P8 and P9 orders passed by the 4th and 5th Respondents, respectively;.

(ii) To declare that the petitioner is not taxable to service tax during the relevant period between 2012-2015 and the tax amount collected and paid by the petitioner is refundable by the Respondent Department to the petitioner itself;

(iii) To issue the writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Department to Refund the petitioner, on behalf of its subscribers, the Service Tax collected & paid by the petitioner;

(iv) Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner is a State Government undertaking. It is a non-banking financial institution registered with the respondent for the payment of service tax etc., under the category of ‘Banking and Other Financial Services’. The petitioner has several branches all over Kerala, each with its own registration.

3. The petitioner was carrying out the chit-fund business through its various branches in Kerala. No service tax was collected prior to the year 2012. However, the Finance Act 1994 was amended in the year 2015, precisely on 14.05.2015, whereby the service tax was made applicable retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2012 on the subscription of chit funds.

4. A batch of writ petitions came to be filed before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 14.03.2018 passed in W.A. No.474/2014 and batch, held that the amendment would have only prospective effect and it cannot be given retrospective effect. This Court also provided that the subscribers would be entitled to a refund of the service tax paid by them between 01.07.2012 to 13.05.2015 if the application is made under the prescribed form, within a period of one year from the date of the judgment.

4.1 Thus, this Court limited the refund for the period from 01.07.2012 to 13.05.2015 and that too on applications in the prescribed form which should have been made within a period of one year from the date of the judgment. Any applications not made in the prescribed form and not within the period of one year from the date of judgment are not liable to be entertained and those are to be rejected.

4.2 It appears that the petitioner has made the application on behalf of its subscribers. However, it has also made an application for a refund in respect of some subscribers for the service tax paid after 13.05.2015. Those claims have been rejected and the impugned order to that extent is hereby confirmed.

4.3 However, there is no ground to reject the claim of the petitioner made on behalf of the other subscribers in respect of the claim of refund of service tax from 01.07.2012 to 13.05.2015 if the petitioner’s application has been made on time, i.e., within one year from the date of the judgment, in the prescribed form and all the relevant data has been provided to the Department.

5. Therefore, the impugned order to that extent rejecting the application of the petitioner on behalf of the subscribers for a refund of service tax paid on subscription from 01.07.2012 to 13.05.2015 is set aside.

5.1 The matter is remitted back to the respective Original Authorities to process the claim of the petitioner for a refund of the service tax for the period from 01.07.2012 to 13.05.2015 and call for any other data, documents or clarifications if so required for processing the application.

5.2 The petitioner is directed to submit fresh data excluding the refund applications for the period after 13.05.2015 in respect of which the order has been upheld by this Court.

5.3 The petitioner should also give an undertaking before the authorities that any subsequent claim by any individual subscriber will be its responsibility and not the responsibility of the taxing authorities.

5.4 The pet