Refund limitation under Section 104: delayed supporting documents prevented rejection of the refund claim

A refund claim under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held not liable to rejection on limitation where the application was filed after the six-month period but the delay resulted from late receipt of the necessary intimation and supporting documents from the collecting agency. The tribunal followed decisions on similar facts and distinguished the contrary precedent as arising under a different provision. The refund rejection was set aside, the assessee succeeded, and consequential relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994 was barred by limitation and liable to be rejected.

Analysis: Section 104 permits refund of service tax collected on one-time upfront development charges and requires the application to be made within six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2017 received the assent of the President. The refund application was filed after that period, but the delay was found not attributable to the claimant. The necessary intimation and supporting documents from SIPCOT were received only later, and the refund application was filed soon thereafter. The cited decisions were followed on similar facts, and the contrary precedent was held inapplicable as it dealt with a different provision.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not to be rejected on limitation in the facts of the case, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting refund was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund claim under Section 104 is filed after the prescribed period but the delay is caused by the delayed availability of the requisite documents and intimation from the collecting agency, the claim should not be rejected solely on limitation.

---