Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 876 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - Retrospective exemption - rejection on the ground of limitation, unjust enrichment and also for violation of the provisions of section 102 (1),(2) and (3) of the Finance Act 1994 - whether the refund claim was filed within the stipulated period contemplated in section 102 (1) that was introduced by Finance Bill 2016? - HELD THAT:- This section provided retrospective exemption to construction service for the period commencing from 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016. At the same time, this section also provided that refund of service tax paid during the period from 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016 has to be filed within a period of six months from the date of enactment of the Finance Bill 2016 i.e. 14.05.2016. It is not in dispute that the refund claim was actually filed on 05.10.2017 which is beyond the period of six months contemplated under section 102 (1) of the Finance Act. In the instance case service tax was liable to be paid at the relevant time and it is only subsequently that by a retrospective amendment, exemption was granted with a specific condition that refund could be claimed by filing it within six months from the date of enactment of the Finance Bill 2016. The refund claim had, therefore, to be filed within six month from 14.05.2016, but it was filed beyond the said period. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the limitation period of one year contemplated under section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 provides for filing of the claim within one year from the date of payment of tax, the refund claim filed by the appellant should be treated to have been filed within time as it was filed within one year cannot also be accepted for the reason that section 102 (1) of the Finance Act itself provides for a limitation period of six months for filing a refund claim - Once the refund claim is held to be barred by time, the question of unjust enrichment would not arise. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
|