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 grants appeal, sets aside time-barred refund denial. Delay due to SIPCOT excluded from limitation period calculation.</h1> <h3>M/s. TEKNOMEC Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST &CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI</h3> M/s. TEKNOMEC Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST &CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI - 2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 135 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues Involved:1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is time-barred.2. Whether the delay caused by SIPCOT in providing necessary documents can be excluded for computing the period of limitation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is time-barred:The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 10,76,803/- on 16.11.2017 for service tax paid on development charges, which was exempted retrospectively under section 104(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. According to section 104(1) of the Finance Act, 2017, the refund claim had to be filed within six months from the date the amendment received the President's assent, which was on 31.03.2017. Therefore, the deadline for filing the refund was 30.09.2017. The department issued a show-cause notice proposing to reject the refund claim as time-barred, and the original authority rejected the claim, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).The appellant argued that the delay occurred because SIPCOT, the service provider, informed them only on 27.10.2017 that they needed to apply for a refund directly. The appellant contended that section 104 does not specify who should file the refund claim, making it impracticable to file within the prescribed period without cooperation from SIPCOT. They relied on the decision in M/s. JSW Dharmatar Port Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, where the court held that 'no person can be expected to perform a task beyond his control,' and the time taken to obtain necessary certificates was excluded from the limitation period.The respondent argued that section 104 specifically states that the refund must be filed within six months from the date of the President's assent, and the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond this period, as supported by the decision in M/s. Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur.2. Whether the delay caused by SIPCOT in providing necessary documents can be excluded for computing the period of limitation:The Tribunal noted that section 104(1) exempts service tax on one-time upfront amounts for long-term leases of industrial plots and mandates a refund of all collected service tax. Sub-section (3) specifies that the refund application must be made within six months from the President's assent. The appellant needed documents from SIPCOT to file the refund claim, and the delay in obtaining these documents from SIPCOT was beyond the appellant's control.The Tribunal referred to the decision in M/s. JSW Dharmatar Port Pvt. Ltd., where the court excluded the time taken to obtain certificates from the Ministry for computing the limitation period, emphasizing that 'no person can be expected to perform a task beyond his control.' The Tribunal found the situation analogous, as the appellant needed information and documents from SIPCOT to file the refund claim.The Tribunal concluded that the delay caused by SIPCOT in providing the necessary documents should be excluded for computing the limitation period. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of being time-barred was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that rejected the refund claim as time-barred. The Tribunal held that the delay caused by SIPCOT in providing necessary documents should be excluded for computing the limitation period, following the principle that no person can be expected to perform a task beyond their control.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found