JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. These writ petitions are filed at the instance of various contractors stated to have been engaged in the execution of works contracts for the Military Engineering Service (MES) as well as the CPWD. It is not in dispute that with respect to the service provided by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.475 of 2017, going by the charging section, they had a liability to satisfy service tax. Admittedly, the petitioners also collected the applicable service tax from the service recipient (MES) as well as CPWD and have also remitted the same. Appropriate returns were also filed by respective petitioners. 2. The petitioners contend that by virtue of Ext.P2 (The Finance Act, 2016) an exemption/non-liability was extended by virtue of the provisions of Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), as regards works contract executed by contractors like the petitioners for the Government, local authority or a Governmental authority. The afore non-liability was for a limited period from 01.04.2015 till 29.02.2016. It is not in dispute that the service provided by the respective petitioners would fall within the ambit of the afore provision and hence entitled to exemption. Sub-section (2) to Section 102 of the Act provided for the refund of service tax already paid. The manner of seeking refund has been specifically laid down under sub-section (3). 3. On the basis of the above, it is not in dispute that all the petitioners in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017 have filed refund applications in the prescribed format. 4. I have heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P.G.Jayasankar and Sri. P.A.Arunkumar, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respective respondents, as well as Smt. Premlatha K.Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 1 st respondent herein. 5. Dr.K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners, points out that as regards the 1 st and 2 nd petitioners in WP(C) No.475 of 2017, during the pendency of the writ petition, their entitlement for refund was processed and refund also effected to them. In that view of the matter, as regards 1 st and 2 nd petitioners in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017 nothing further remains for consideration. 6. In that view of the matter, as regards 1 st and 2 nd petitioners in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017 nothing further remains for consideration. 6. However, Dr.K.P.Pradeep would point out that as regards the 3 rd and 4 th petitioners in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017, the application/s for refund was independently considered by the authority under the Finance Act and by separate orders, the claim for refund was rejected. The 3 rd petitioner in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017, in such circumstances, filed W.P(C) No. 29774 of 2017 seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P4 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (4 th respondent). The 4 th petitioner in W.P(C) No. 475 of 2017 has filed W.P(C) No. 29706 of 2017 seeking to challenge Ext.P4 order rejecting the application for refund as above, issued by the 4 th respondent. 7. As regards petitioner Nos.5 to 8 in W.P(C) No. 475 of2017, it is not in dispute that their claim for refund has not yet been finally adjudicated by the authority. However, they anticipate that their claims would also be rejected in view of the rejection of the claims made by two of the petitioners, as noticed above. 8. This Court notices that, as regards the nature of the activities carried out by the respective petitioners, there is no dispute. The petitioners have been extending work contract services to the MES/CPWD. They admit that service tax was collected and also paid. In that view of the matter, with reference to the provisions of Section 102(2) of the Act, read along with provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioners had an obligation to refund the tax collected as above to the recipient of the supply and also to file an afÏdavit in that regard along with the applications for refund. In the case at hand, I notice that the refund applications have been filed, pointing out that out of the total liability paid, a particular amount has been collected from MES/CPWD, and the same would have to be refunded ultimately to MES/CPWD, and it is only the balance that is to be refunded to the petitioner. As regards the 4 th petitioner in W.P(C) No. 475 of 2017, the application at Ext.P9 contains the following declaration: - “7. As regards the 4 th petitioner in W.P(C) No. 475 of 2017, the application at Ext.P9 contains the following declaration: - “7. I/We declare that the duty for which refund has been claimed has not been charged/realised from any other person and a copy of the price-list, relevant Gate Pass (Central Excise) like documents and invoices are enclosed. (Total Service Tax and interest paid was 1,15,52,738/-. Out of this Rs. 1,09,11,243/- was refunded from Military Engineering Services Department which may be refunded to them and the balance of Rs. 6,41,495/-may be refunded to us.)” 9. However, while considering the afore application, the Assistant Commissioner, by Ext.P4 in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017, has concluded that the petitioner has not been able to prove that there was no unjust enrichment in the case at hand, merely by providing a declaration to the above effect in the application for refund. Reference is also made to the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in that regard. 10. In this connection, I notice the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Alwaye Sugar Agency v. Asst. Commissioner (ASSMNT)[ 2017 (4) KLT 794 ] wherein it has been held as under: - “Although taxing statutes must receive a strict interpretation, designed as they are to exact money from a citizen so as to finance Government expenditure, the interpretation cannot be a reckless one, mindless of the probable impact that it could have on tax paying assessees or, as in the instant case, members of the trading community. To err is human, more so in accountancy, and unless it is established that the accounting lapse was the result of a willful omission or suppression with an intent to evade tax, the trade tax authorities in a civilized society should give due regard to the dignity of the members of the trading community and be more accommodative to reasonable requests for regularising technical omissions with a view to ensuring tax compliance. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously remarked that 'a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the mediocre mind'. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously remarked that 'a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the mediocre mind'. In a similar vein, a mechanical application of procedural provisions in a Taxing Statute, without considering the purpose for which they were inserted in the Statute, does not augur well for the reputation of the tax man, whose attitude must change with the times, so that citizens see him more as a facilitator for tax compliance rather than a legally empowered money snatcher.” The afore judgment was carried in appeal by the revenue and the Division Bench of this Court in Commercial Tax O Varghese [ 2018 (3) KLT 468 ], while confirming the judgment of the Single Judge, made the following further observations: - “9…..It is high time the OfÏcers of the Department rose up from their mediocre mind set and became facilitators of finance and commerce aiding the economic advancement of the Nation rather than reducing themselves to mere tax collectors and target achievers. The taxing statute is not an instrument of oppression and has to be treated as one enabling trade and commerce; which at the same time fetch revenue for the State to be employed in discharging its various activities and obligations to the citizen. Without enterprise, there would be no revenue and if the source is choked, it would be akin to killing the proverbial hen that lays the golden eggs. It is time the Department and its ofÏcers woke up to the economic realities and resort to a more practical and pragmatic approach in proceeding under and enforcing the tax enactment to have a complete make over from the image of oppressors to that of facilitators.” 11. It is with reference to the touchstone of the principles laid down in the afore judgments that the respective contentions in these writ petitions have to be evaluated. 12. Though with reference to the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the 4 th respondent in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017 cannot be said to be unjustified in passing an order in the nature of the one at Ext.P4, I notice that the service recipient in the case at hand was the MES/CPWD. Had there been any service provided by the respective petitioners to a private party, the reference made to the provisions of Section 11B would have been a good reason for rejecting the claim for refund. Had there been any service provided by the respective petitioners to a private party, the reference made to the provisions of Section 11B would have been a good reason for rejecting the claim for refund. But in the case at hand, the petitioner has specifically pointed out in the application for refund that the service recipient is none other than the MES/CPWD - another organ of the Central Government. That being so, I am of the opinion that the authority under the statute had an obligation to inform the petitioners in these cases as to the requirement for making repayment of the amounts directly and then seeking a refund, or in the alternative, making payment of the entire amount refundable to the MES/CPWD as specifically pointed out in the application for refund, directly to MES/CPWD and paying only the balance, if any, to the petitioners. However, while issuing the impugned order at Ext.P4, the 4 th respondent in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017 has not chosen to do so. 13. I also notice that as regards the petitioner in WP(C)No. 29706 of 2017, he has chosen to rely on a subsequent communication obtained from MES/CPWD dated 28.02.2017, produced as Ext.P5 in the writ petition, pointing out that the refund may be effected directly to the MES/CPWD. I am of the opinion that when such a specific request, though made subsequently, is before the department, it is for the department to take note of the same, especially when it is submitted by another department of the Central Government itself. 14. I also notice the judgment of the Apex Court in Corporation Bank v. M/s. Saraswati Abharansala and Another [ 2009 (1) SCC 540 ] , wherein on almost similar circumstances, the Apex Court considered the refusal to refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, holding that a purposive interpretation should be carried out with reference to the notification on the basis of which the claim for refund was made in that case. Applying the ratio of the afore judgment, I am of the opinion that in the cases at hand, the petitioners have only sought to rely on the provisions entitling them to exemption by virtue of the Act. When that be so, it was for the authority under the statute to have noticed the intention behind the extension of the exemption and passed an order accordingly. When that be so, it was for the authority under the statute to have noticed the intention behind the extension of the exemption and passed an order accordingly. In the light of all the above, I am of the opinion that these writ petitions are only to be disposed of as under: - i. Ext. P4 in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017 and WP(C) No. 29774 of 2017 are set aside. ii. The 4 th respondent in W.P(C) No. 29706 of 2017 and W.P(C) No. 29774 of 2017 is directed to reconsider the claim for refund made by the respective petitioners, with specific reference to Ext.P5 request made from the side of MES/CPWD dated 28.02.2007. Insofar as it is admitted that no such representation has been made with reference to the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 29774 of 2017, I direct the 4 th respondent therein to take note of a similar request made in W.P(C) No. 29706 of 2017 and refund the amount payable to the MES/CPWD, as pointed out by the petitioners in their respective applications, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. iii. If any further amount remains in excess after transferring the amounts to MES/CPWD, the same shall be refunded to the respective petitioners. iv. As regards the petitioners 5 to 8 in WP(C) No. 475 of 2017, the 4 th respondent or competent among the respondents shall consider the claim for refund and act in accordance with the directions contained in serial No.(ii) and (iii) above.