Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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