Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal orders refund claim reconsideration due to appellant's excusable delay.</h1> <h3>Suzlon Energy Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Mysuru Commissionerate</h3> Suzlon Energy Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Mysuru Commissionerate - TMI Issues:- Rejection of refund claim on the grounds of time bar and condonation of delay.Analysis:The appeal was directed against the order rejecting the appellant's refund claim of service tax. The appellant, a SEZ unit manufacturing wind mill parts, filed a refund claim of Rs. 39,46,171 under Notification No. 12/2013-ST for service tax paid from July 2014 to September 2014. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim of Rs. 30,14,429, which was upheld in the impugned order. The appellant contended that the rejection based on time bar and refusal to condone the delay was not legally sustainable. The appellant filed the refund claim on 30/06/2015 and also sought condonation of delay on the same day, citing specific reasons for each service provider. The appellant argued that the conditions for refund were met, and the delay was beyond their control. The appellant relied on legal precedents emphasizing the distinction between substantive and procedural conditions, advocating a liberal interpretation of time limits for filing claims. The appellant also highlighted a previous successful appeal where delay was condoned, supporting their argument with relevant case law.The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order failed to consider the reasons for delay adequately and did not appreciate the grounds presented in the condonation application. The appellant provided detailed explanations for each service provider's delay, attributing them to circumstances beyond their control. The counsel stressed that the conditions for refund were fulfilled, and the rejection solely based on delay was unjust. The appellant's reliance on legal precedents and comparison with similar cases supported their plea for a liberal interpretation of time limits. The appellant's submission aimed to demonstrate that the delay in filing the refund claim was procedural and should not bar them from receiving the refund. The counsel's thorough analysis of the facts and legal principles sought to establish the appellant's eligibility for refund despite the delay in filing the claim.The Assistant Commissioner, represented by the learned AR, supported the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's alleged failure to provide necessary documents for the refund claim. The AR argued that the decision to grant an extension for filing the claim rested on the appellant's ability to substantiate their case with proper documentation. The AR's stance implied that the rejection of the claim was justified due to the appellant's purported lack of essential documents and failure to meet the requirements for a time extension. The AR's position suggested that the authorities were within their discretion to deny the refund based on the appellant's failure to satisfy the evidentiary demands for the claim.In the final analysis, the Tribunal found that the primary reason for rejecting the refund claim was the appellant's purported failure to produce required documents and the perceived lack of convincing reasons for the delay in seeking condonation. However, the Tribunal noted that the delay reasons provided by the appellant were beyond their control, and the time limit condition in the notification was procedural in nature. Citing legal precedent and the spirit of the notification, the Tribunal adopted a liberal interpretation, condoning the delay and remanding the case for a merit-based decision. By emphasizing the procedural nature of the time limit condition and the need for a liberal approach in interpreting such provisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing a reconsideration of the claim based on the documents submitted and to be provided for verification.(Order pronounced on 28/11/2018)

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found