TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made to the Hon ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vs. Nataraj Venkat Associates [2014 (5) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] laying down that the refund claim beyond the period of limitation provided under law is totally barred by limitation. Even the fact that the tax was paid under a mistake of law, cannot be adopted for grant of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit of the Service Tax of ₹ 12,68,033/- paid on input services, as on 30.06.2017. After the introduction of the Goods Service Tax regime, w.e.f. 01.07.2017, they were allowed to carry forward the Cenvat credit of ₹ 12,68,033/- under Section 140 of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act, 2017). Since there was inverted tax structure under the Goods Service Tax reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f time limitation, in the light of clause B(f) of the Explanation in Section 11B of the Act. 4. On appeal against the above order Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the issue of time barred. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant is not disputing the fact that such refund was filed beyond the period of limitation. 6. Though there are other issues involved, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Revenue authority. 8. Reference can be made to the Hon ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vs. Nataraj Venkat Associates 2015 (40) S.T.R. 31 (Mad.) laying down that the refund claim beyond the period of limitation provided under law is totally barred by limitation. Even the fact that the tax was paid under a mistake of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
