2022 (8) TMI 500 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - limitation of time prescribed under the bill ended on 14.05.2016 whereas the appellant have filed the impugned refund claim on 19.06.2017 - applicability of provisions of Section 102 (3) of Finance Act, 1944, which provides that refund claim should be filed within a period of six months on the date of enactment of the Finance Bill, 2016 - HELD THAT - The refund claim needs to be filed within a period of 6 months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the president. The appellants have filed the impugned refund claim on 19.06.2017 much after the presidential assent to the amendment has been accorded. It is not a case of the appellant that they were not aware of the legal provisions in this regard. It is on record that a similar claim has been made by the appellant for Rs.1, 33,257/- on 08.11.2016. It is not possible to accept the contention that if a refund filed first is within time, the subsequent refunds should also be treated to have been filed in time. Each claim of refund is a separate application and needs to be treated separate; has to be sanctioned separately. The proposition of the applicant leads to absurd conclusions as the sanctity of limitation is lost. Therefore, the appellant s claim that the subsequent refund filed on 19.06.2017 be treated as part of the refund claim filed on 08.11.2016 cannot be accepted. It is found that if a statute prescribed the limitation such limitation has to be observed by the concerned while seeking refund. The authorities and for that matter this Tribunal, being creatures of the statute cannot extend the period of limitation or pass an order to the effect that delayed submission of refund would not disentitled to the refund, even if it pertains to refund of duty paid, which is subsequently, held to be non-payable. There are no merit in the submissions of the appellant - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on limitation period for filing.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the denial of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Noida, regarding a clerical mistake in filing for a refund amount. The appellant filed a refund application due to the retrospective exemption on specified services provided to the Government, a local authority, or a governmental authority during a specific period. The appellant argued that the tax paid was deemed not payable due to the amendment and retrospective exemption, hence the collected tax should be refunded without a formal claim. However, the Department contended that the refund claim should have been filed within six months from the enactment of the Finance Bill, 2016. The Department cited relevant legal judgments to support their argument.

Upon analyzing the provisions of Section 102 of the Finance Act, the Tribunal found that the refund claim must be filed within six months from the date of the Finance Bill, 2016 receiving the President's assent. The appellant filed the refund claim after this period, and it was noted that a previous claim had been made within the prescribed time. The Tribunal emphasized that each refund claim is a separate application and needs to be treated as such, even if previous claims were timely. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that subsequent refunds should be considered part of the initial claim, as it would undermine the importance of the limitation period.

The Tribunal considered the legal precedents cited by the Department and concluded that statutory limitations must be adhered to when seeking a refund. It was highlighted that statutory bodies like the Tribunal cannot extend the limitation period or overlook delayed submissions for refunds, especially when the duty paid is later deemed non-payable. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's submissions and rejected the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim based on the limitation period for filing, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and treating each refund claim as a separate application. The appeal was dismissed on 10-08-2022.