9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Margadarshi Chit funds Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2017 SC 3730. In the meantime and association of such chit funds, Kerala Chitty Formen's Association filed Writ Petition No.32097 of 2007 challenging levy of Service Tax on chit transactions before the Hon'ble high court of Kerala. On disposal of the writ petition, issue was pending before Division of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala including Writ Appeal No.273 of 2013. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus Margadarshi Chit funds (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide judgment dated 14th March, 2018 disposed writ appeals as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As per Para 9 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court disposed the writ petition directing the appellant to file appeal before the Appellate Authority. As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the appellant filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dismissed the appellant's claim on the ground that appellant is not the petitioner who filed appeal as member of the association. Thus on the ground of limitation appeal was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The matter came up before the Single Bench on 30 March, 2023 and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Tribunal directed the appellants to produce necessary documents in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 336 (Del.), judgment of Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 15357/2009 in the case of Natraj and Venkat Associates v. Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai- II dated 20.10.2009 [2010(17) S.T.R. 3 (Mad)] to support their contention that the limitation is not applicable where the levy is illegal. With regard to the limitation period for sanction of refund, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Salonah Tea Company limited v. Superintendent of Taxes, Now going 1988 (33 ELT. 249 (SC) wherein it was held that "if there is no provision for realization of the money under the Act, the act of payment was ultra vires. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that no pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 14.03.2018 and not w.e.f 04.07.2017 as held by adjudication authority. As per the judgment dated 14 March, 2018, Hon'ble High court specified that the limitation for filing refund application will be extended for one year from 14.03.2018. However, Commissioner (Appeals) has not extended the period of limitation on the ground that the appellant was not party to the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Such finding is unsustainable. If benefit can be denied on the ground that appellant is not a party to such a proceeding, Adjudication/appellate authority have no reason to consider even the date of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4.07.2017 as date of commencement of the period of limitation since appellant was not party t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
