9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was initially filed by the appellant online on 19/08/2012, which was returned by the department and subsequently, re-submitted along with requisite documents on 19/12/2012 by the appellant. It is evident that the refund application filed online in the ACES computer system was accepted and receipt of the same was acknowledged by the department on 19/08/2012 - For the purpose of computation of limitation period for entertaining the refund application, Section 11B ibid provides that the application should be filed within one year from the relevant date - In this case, refund application filed online was not rejected by the department and the same was returned to the appellant for re-submission after enclosing the relevant data/particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. Appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the department and subsequently, re-submitted along with requisite documents on 19/12/2012 by the appellant. It is evident that the refund application filed online in the ACES computer system was accepted and receipt of the same was acknowledged by the department on 19/08/2012. For the purpose of computation of limitation period for entertaining the refund application, Section 11B ibid provides that the application should be filed within one year from the relevant date. In this case, refund application filed online was not rejected by the department and the same was returned to the appellant for re-submission after enclosing the relevant data/particulars. As per the statutory provisions, the date of re-submission of refund applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service of maintenance nor the said deposit is towards consideration of construction service. Further, the appellant had also submitted the books of accounts to show that the deposit amount received from the flat owners were reflected in the liability side of the balance sheet. However, submissions made by the appellant were ignored by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and has upheld the adjudication order by solely pleasing relevance on paragraph 8 of the agreement to sell. On going through such agreement, we do not find any evidence that the appellant had provided any service for repair and maintenance of the flats belonging to the flat owners. Thus, in the absence of any provision of service, mere acceptance of deposit by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
