Strict limitation for refund notifications bars delayed claims where no condonation power is provided.

A refund claim under an amending notification had to be filed within six months from presidential assent, and the prescribed period was treated as mandatory. Because the claim was filed after the last date, it was held to be time-barred. The notification contained no power to enlarge the limitation period or condone delay, so equitable considerations could not override the express condition. Beneficial notifications were said to require strict compliance with their terms, and failure to satisfy the filing deadline meant the refund benefit could not be granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 102 of the Finance Bill, 2016 and the notification governing the refund, and whether the delay could be condoned.

Analysis: The refund under the amending notification was required to be filed within six months from the date of presidential assent, which was 14.05.2016. On that basis, the last date for filing was 13.11.2016, whereas the claim was filed on 18.11.2016. The time limit prescribed by the notification was mandatory, and no provision conferred power to enlarge the period or condone the delay. Beneficial notifications are to be construed strictly, and once the prescribed condition is not satisfied, the benefit cannot be extended.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and the delay could not be condoned. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund notification prescribes a specific limitation period and does not provide for condonation, the prescribed time limit must be strictly enforced and the benefit cannot be granted on equitable grounds.

---