2019 (7) TMI 571 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - Construction services - benefit of N/N. 25/2012-ST(NT) dated 20.06.2012 - HELD THAT - The N/N. 25/2012-ST(NT) dated 20.06.2012 was issued notifying various services wherein no service tax will be leviable. In terms of serial no. 12(a) of the above Notification, construction services provided to the Government enjoyed such exemption. However, the benefit was withdrawn vide Notification No. 06/2015-ST dated 01.03.2015 by omitting the said serial number from Notification No. 25/2012. However, the benefit was re-introduced w.e.f. 01.03.2016 vide Notification No. 09/2016 ST dated 01.03.2016. The appellant has rented certain services of construction to Government Departments. Such services enjoyed the benefit of exemption through Notification No. 25/2012 ST(NT). However, for a brief period i.e. 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2015 the benefit was not available. The appellant however filed refund claim only on 08.01.2018 which is evidently after the expiry of the last date - the time limit specified in Section 102 is required to be satisfied for extending the benefit of refund. Since the claim has been preferred beyond the date set out in Section 102, there is no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting such claim. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund claim for construction services provided to Government Departments during the period when the exemption was withdrawn and later reintroduced.
2. Whether the appellant's refund claim filed after the specified time limit under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 is valid.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided construction services to Government Departments during a period when the exemption for such services was withdrawn and later reintroduced. The appellant filed a refund claim for this period after the specified time limit under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016. The issue revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to the refund claim despite filing it beyond the prescribed time limit. The appellant argued that since there was no liability for service tax on their part as the services were provided to Government Departments, they should be granted the refund. The appellant also cited precedents where it was held that tax not liable to be paid could be refunded even beyond the limitation period under relevant laws.

2. The Departmental Representative defended the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the benefit of refund under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 could only be extended if the claim was filed within the specified time limit. As the appellant filed the refund claim after the deadline of 13.11.2016, the lower authority rightfully rejected the claim. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments from both sides and the relevant legal provisions. It was noted that the benefit of refund under Section 102 was contingent upon the claim being made within the specified time limit. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, stating that the appellant's failure to adhere to the time limit set out in Section 102 rendered the refund claim invalid.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision rejecting the appellant's refund claim as it was filed after the expiry of the specified time limit under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with statutory time limits for claiming refunds, even in cases where the tax liability itself is disputed.