Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2010-11/1034

Relevant date of filing Refund claim
Case: Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi v/s M/s HMA Udyog Pvt Ltd
 
Citation: 2010 (20) STR 827 (Tri–Del) 

Issue:- What will be the date of filing of the refund claim if first it is submitted incomplete and subsequently the completed documents are submitted? 

Brief Facts:- During the period from 16 August 2002 to March'03 respondent-assessee paid service tax by treating their activity as Advertising Agency Service. Subsequently, on realizing that their activity was not covered by the definition of advertising agency service, they filed a refund claim on 29.8.03 alongwith certain documents. Since all the relevant documents were not submitted and certain information had not been given, respondents were asked to furnish the required documents and information. Accordingly, revised refund claim was filed on 17.03.04. 

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the entire refund claim as being time barred under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to service tax by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order on the ground that since the tax had been collected without authority of law, the limitation period under Section 11B would not apply as the refund claim would not be governed by the Section 11B. 

Against this order, appeal has been filed by Revenue before the Tribunal. Their appeal specifically mentioned that the refund claim of service tax of Rs.82, 544/- deposited by TR.6 challan dt.16.8.02 is time barred. 

Appellant’s Contention:- Revenue pleaded that since the claim had been filed under provisions of Section 11B read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be governed by the limitation period prescribed under this Section. The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that this is a case when the tax was paid without authority of law and limitation period would not apply. Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)] wherein it was held that once a refund claim is filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, it would be governed by the provisions of that section.
 
Respondent’s Contention:- Respondent concedes that the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B would be applicable to this refund claim but he emphasized that since the refund claim had been filed on 29.8.03, only a part of the claim, in particular an amount of Rs.82,544/- paid on 16.8.02, would be hit by limitation and the rest of the claim would be within time. It was submitted that even the Revenue's appeal is against the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order allowing refund of service tax of Rs.82,544/- paid on 16.8.02, as it is mentioned that it only the refund claim of the amount of Rs.82,544/- paid on 16.8.02 which is time barred and as such Revenue's appeal does not challenge the entire refund claim and that in view of this, the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order is incorrect only to the extent of allowing the refund claim of Rs.82,544/-.
 
Reasoning of the Judgment:- The Tribunal found that respondent had paid the service tax amounting to Rs.82,544/- for the month of July'02 on 16.8.02 and the service tax for the months from Aug'02 to June'03 had been paid during the period from 13.9.02 to 24.7.03. The total tax paid for period from July'02 to June'03 was Rs.12, 19, 287/- out of which an amount of Rs.82, 544/- as service tax for July'02 had been paid on 16.8.02. The respondent had paid the service tax under the impression that their activity is covered by the definition of "Advertising Agency Service". However, subsequently on realizing that their activity is not covered by the definition of Advertising Agency Service, they filed the refund claim on 29.8.03.
 
The Tribunal found that though on defects and deficiencies being pointed out by the Department, the respondent had submitted the revised refund claim on 17.03.04, it is 29.8.03 which has to be treated as the date for filing the claim. Since both sides agreed that the refund would be governed by the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B, it is only the refund claim of Rs.82,544/- of the service tax for the month of July'02 paid on 16.8.02, which would be hit by time bar and the remaining claim would be within time.
 
In view of the above, it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is incorrect only to the extent it has allowed the refund claim of Rs.82, 544/- of service tax paid on 16.8.02. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order stands modified.
 
Decision:- Revenue's appeal partly allowed.
 
Comments:- This is very good decision. Department normally says that the refund is to be reckoned from the date when all the documents are filed. They return the refund rather than issuing show cause notice. Even if the show cause notice is issued and the incomplete documents are filed then they say that the refund is to be reckoned from the date of filing of documents. Hence these are time barred. But this decision has clearly laid down that the it is to be reckoned from the date when refund is originally filed and not from the date when insufficient document/information is filed subsequently. 
 

************
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com