9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred back to the claimant. It is moot whether an order can render it to be so without the willing participation of the claimant in a custodial transaction. That the claimant has been pursuing appellate remedies is a clear indication of lack of such willingness. The orders of the lower authorities would appear to be no whit more than printing on a piece of paper. The claim itself is symptomatic of a lack of faith in the fairness of the institution in dealing with refund claims. Every conceivable reason is assigned to justify 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 justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 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 ₹ 38,94,950/- as providers of management, maintenance and repair service' and ₹ 1,38,941/- as providers of business support services' for the period April 2005 to September 2007 and for the period from April 2006 to September 2007 respectively. A further amount of ₹ 3,46,488/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in the cloak of complexity. We note two parallel tracks of proceedings which do not logically admit to such dichotomous treatment. It was probably the risk of interest' liability that led the appellant to pay the taxes but the equally pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efy 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 absurdity. It would appear that the two lower authorities chose to attach a status to the refund claim that is not contemplated in the statute. 7. Besides statutory impropriety and fallacious description, a consummation disconnect is also per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. 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 claims. The impugned order appears to have been conceived as a tool to escape this burden without taking a decision on the refund claim. Such perversion of legislative intent cannot pass unchallenged. 9. The eligibility for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
