Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (1) TMI 865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a letter to the appellant informing the appellant to file the refund claim. The due date for filing the refund claim, as per the provisions contained in 104(3) of Finance Act, 2017 is 30.9.2017. The appellant received the letter from SIPCOT on 11.9.2017. However, the refund claim has been filed by the appellant only 26.11.2018 which is beyond the period of one year. It is clear that the refund claim has been filed within a reasonable time and without much delay after receiving intimation from SIPCOT. In the present case, there is inordinate delay after receiving intimation from SIPCOT on 11.9.2017. For these reasons, these decisions are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the case on hand - In the case of JPG CONSTRUCTION PVT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Such refund claim has to be filed within six months from the date when the Finance Bill 2017 receives the assent of the President of India. The Bill received assent on 1.4.2017. The claim then ought to have been filed on or before 30.9.2017. The refund claim was filed by appellant only on 26.11.2018. As it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit of six months, the claim was rejected being time-barred. Aggrieved by such order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order passed by the original authority, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel Shri Rabeen Jayaram appeared and argued for the appellant. He submitted that in the present case, the appellant had paid the service tax on development charges .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7; 4,40,510/- which is service tax paid by them on development charges. The claim has to be filed within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill 2017 receives the assent of the President. However, SIPCOT had intimated the appellant about the above provision eligibility to claim refund only 21 days prior to the due date for filing the refund claim. 5. Meanwhile, the appellant had already taken CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by them to SIPCOT. After the introduction of GST regime, they carried forward the said credit to the TRAN- 1 filed on 6.1.2017. Later, the department instructed the appellant to reverse the credit alleging that the credit is ineligible and is a wrongly availed credit. They reversed the cre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A and not Chapter V and hence the operation of section 104 does not exclude the provisions of Chapter V. Section 104 is a special provision for extending the benefit and hence when the eligibility otherwise is not questioned, the benefit cannot be denied. Hence the time limit mentioned is only directory in nature. 10. He argued that section 104 does not identify as to who can make the refund application. If it had mentioned that service provider (the industrial organization allotting the plots) could make the application and pass over the amount to the service recipient, it would have been easy to apply within the limitation prescribed. In cases where SIPCOT has not collected and has borne the incidence of tax, SIPCOT can make the refu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t and reflected the same in the TRAN-1 filed by them. After introduction of section 104 by Finance Act, 2017 whereby exemption from service tax was provided on development charges by way of grant of refund, SIPCOT had issued a letter to the appellant informing the appellant to file the refund claim. The due date for filing the refund claim, as per the provisions contained in 104(3) of Finance Act, 2017 is 30.9.2017. The appellant received the letter from SIPCOT on 11.9.2017. However, the refund claim has been filed by the appellant only 26.11.2018 which is beyond the period of one year. 14. The learned counsel for appellant has relied upon various decisions. In the case of M/s. Suprajit Engineering Ltd. (supra), SIPCOT had informed the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates