Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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