Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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