2019 (10) TMI 1566 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of service tax rejected - whether the application for refund preferred by the petitioner was within time as contemplated under the statutory provisions - HELD THAT - Ext.P4 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund on the ground of limitation is one that does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of the rules of natural justice so as to warrant an interference with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is more so because against Ext.P4 order the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act where factual aspects regarding the date from which the period of limitation has to be computed can be gone into as also the question as regards applicability of the decisions of the Supreme Court/High Court to the facts of the petitioner s case. Accordingly without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P4 order is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge against Ext.P4 order rejecting application for refund on grounds of limitation.

In this judgment by the Kerala High Court, the petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order rejecting their application for refund of service tax between June 2007 to June 2012. The main issue for consideration was whether the application for refund was filed within the prescribed time as per statutory provisions. The petitioner argued that based on decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, they were allowed to file applications within one year from a specified date instead of the statutory period for filing refund applications. The court needed to determine if the petitioner could benefit from these decisions and if the refund claim was filed within the required time under the Statute.

The court held that Ext.P4 order, which rejected the petitioner's refund claim on the basis of limitation, did not contain any jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice that would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was directed to pursue an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act, where factual aspects related to the computation of the limitation period and the applicability of Supreme Court/High Court decisions to the petitioner's case could be examined. The court dismissed the writ petition against Ext.P4 order, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy through the appeal process.

Acknowledging the petitioner's need for time to approach the Appellate Authority, the court directed that if the petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P4 order within one month from receiving a copy of the judgment, the Appellate Authority should treat the appeal as timely filed and proceed to adjudicate it on merits after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment to the Appellate Authority for further action.