2022 (2) TMI 248 - AT - Service Tax

Dismissed appeal due to late refund claim filing under Finance Act. Compliance with statutory timelines crucial.

The appeal was dismissed due to the untimely filing of the refund claim under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994. The claim was submitted after the ... Rejection of refund claim - residential complex services - Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the refund claim was not filed within a period of six months as provided in sub Section (3) of Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994. The Finance Bill was granted assent on 14.05.2016. Refund claim has been filed on 05.09.2017. The issue has been settled by the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/S MDP INFRA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & CGST [2019 (2) TMI 208 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT], which was approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in MDP INFRA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER [2021 (7) TMI 1261 - SC ORDER] where it was held that the notification No. 12/2012 & 25/2012 ceased to exist w.e.f. 01/04/2015. The exemption was revived by notification dated 01/03/2016. But since it was prospective in effect, the appellant was not entitled for any exemption, which the appellant was aware of and with open mind and eyes deposited the service tax due with interest. The appeal is dismissed. Issues:- Rejection of refund claim under Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994- Timeliness of the refund claim filingAnalysis:1. Rejection of Refund Claim: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994. This section provides a special provision for exemption in certain cases related to the construction of government buildings. It exempts service tax on taxable services provided to the government, local authority, or governmental authority for specific types of constructions. However, the refund claim in this case was not filed within the prescribed period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2016 received the assent of the President. The Finance Bill received assent on 14.05.2016, whereas the refund claim was filed on 05.09.2017, which was beyond the stipulated timeframe.2. Legal Precedent: The Superintendent (AR) pointed out a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Limited, where substantial questions of law were examined. The court clarified that the service tax and penalty were not deposited under misconception as the works contract undertaken was not exempted during the relevant period. The court also emphasized that the appellant was obligated to deposit service tax for non-exempted services, and the delay in filing the refund claim was not justified since the appellant was aware of the non-entitlement for exemption during that period.3. Judicial Decision: The Member (Technical) considered the submissions and the grounds of appeal, noting that the issue had been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Limited, which was subsequently approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner case, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing refund claims and the legal obligation to pay service tax for non-exempted services.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of timely compliance with statutory provisions, particularly in the context of refund claims under the Finance Act, 1994. The decision highlights the legal principles governing the exemption of service tax and the necessity for claimants to demonstrate adherence to prescribed timelines for seeking refunds.