Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 141 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - retrospective exemption - rejection of refund on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of six months as stipulated u/s 103 of Finance Act, 2016 and thus barred by limitation - the Respondent filed an application on 28.11.2016 for refund of Service Tax of ₹ 12,67,61,271/-paid during the period 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016 - whether the refund claim filed on 28.11.2016 is admissible to the Appellant even though it was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under sub-sec.(3) of Section 103 of Finance Bill,2016, where under an application for refund shall be made within a period of six months from the date on which Finance Act, 2016 receive the assent of the President of India? - The learned Commissioner (Appeals), considering the delay as mere procedural lapse, condoned the same and held that the refund is admissible to the Appellant - whether learned Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in enhancing the period of six months and condoning the delay? Held that: - it is clear that the intention of the legislature while enacting Section 103 of Finance Act,2016 was to provide the refund of Service Tax paid during the period 01.4.2015 to 29.02.2016 within a period of six months from the date of assent to the Finance Bill 2016 by the President of India. Therefore, the legislature must have taken into consideration the circumstances/eventualities in prescribing the period of limitation in filing the refund claim, without making any reference to possible delay in filing it and then authorizing the officers exercising jurisdiction, to condone the same on sufficient cause being shown. The question whether the time limit prescribed under the refund provisions in the context of refund claimed could be relaxed/ extended by the authorities, has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company [1996 (5) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that The power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law - Their Lordships of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.’s case [2011 (12) TMI 540 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] laying down the principle that limitation prescribed under Sec.11B of CEA, 1944 is not a procedural one and thus the period laid down thereunder cannot be extended. It can safely be inferred that the period of six months prescribed under Sub. Sec.(3) of Sec.103 of the Finance Act,2016 cannot be extended by the departmental authorities. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in condoning the delay in filing the refund claim by the Respondent - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
|