2019 (8) TMI 1567 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service Tax - time limitation - President has given his assent to the Finance Bill on 14 May, 2016, but appellant s refund application was filed on 18-11-2016 i.e. beyond the period of six months - HELD THAT - There is no power or jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the legislation so as to enlarge the period of limitation as provided in the notification. The beneficial notifications have to be interpreted strictly and once the condition of the notification is not satisfied, the benefit cannot be extended. The Authorities working under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act and notification in question has not given any powers to condone the time period. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed beyond the prescribed time limit under the amended notification.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim of ?1,07,278/- following an amendment in Mega Notification No. 25/2012, which allowed refunds for taxes paid on services provided under a contract entered prior to 1-3-2015. The amendment required refund applications to be filed within six months from the date of the President's assent to the Finance Bill. The President gave assent on 14 May, 2016, making it the relevant date for the limitation period. However, the appellant filed the refund application on 18-11-2016, beyond the stipulated period. The Original Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim on grounds of limitation, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) leading to the present appeal.

The Appellate Authority noted that as per Section 102 inserted in the Finance Bill, applications for refund had to be filed within six months from the President's assent to the Finance Bill. Since the assent was given on 14 May, 2016, refund applications were required to be filed by 13-11-2016. The appellant admitted filing on 18-11-2016, citing illness as a reason for the delay. However, the Authority emphasized that the Court cannot interfere in legislation to extend the limitation period set by the notification. The principle of strict interpretation of beneficial notifications was highlighted, stating that non-compliance with notification conditions precludes extending benefits. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was reiterated that the Authorities must adhere to the Act's provisions, and the notification did not grant powers to condone time periods. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, finding no merit in the appellant's argument.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision to reject the refund claim due to its late filing, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits in statutory notifications and the limitations on the Court's power to alter such provisions.