9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 and 5 th February 2008. Appellant is a unit registered under the Software Technology Park Scheme embodied in the Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. They are in the business of software development for export, software consulting engineering services and in licencing their own products to customers. It appears from the records that service tax authorities took up their activities for scrutiny and called for their detailed explanation for alleged failure to pay tax on services. Despite assertion that they were not liable to tax for the period prior to 16 th June 2005, vide their letter dated 19 th December 2007, they paid service tax of Rs. 38,94,950/- as providers of 'management, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claims be kept in abeyance till the proceedings under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 were completed. The first appellate authority in its order-in-appeal no. PIII/VM/159/2010 dated 9 th July 2010 did not accede to the plea on the ground that there was no provision in the statute for keeping a refund application in abeyance and reiterated the observation of the lower authority that appellant was eligible to file refund claim after the proceedings for recovery of tax allegedly short-paid attain a finality. Thus the matter reaches us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. At the outset, we state that we find ourselves treading the thin edge of the wedge in this otherwise simple matter that is now unrecognizable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keeping a decision in abeyance but has, on the contrary, attached penalty consequences to such holding in abeyance also did not provide for returning of a refund claim. The justification put forth by the two lower authorities appears to defy logic. 6. Justification afforded for the act of returning the claim appears to flow from it being 'premature.' Implicit in such a description is the existence of a time period prior to which no claim can be preferred. Again, the statute does not prescribe a near deadline for filing claims. 'Premature' is, therefore, inexplicable and incomprehensible in the context. Such a description would be apt only if an application has been made before taxes or duties were paid which is plainly an absurdit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the unwillingness to open the purse strings and not the least used are 'limitation' and 'pre-requisite of challenging the assessment.' It would appear that the claim has been filed to forestall recourse to these justifications. That the claim has been filed and that it has been preceded by payment of tax is undeniable. That the content of the order passed in relation to the refund claims is unimplementable is uncontestable. Nevertheless, there is an order and the fallacies therein need to be remedied because we have taken a solemn oath to uphold the laws of the country. The legislative organ of the state has imposed a burden of interest for delays in sanctioning of refund and prescribed a time-frame of three months for processing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
