Construction firm's service tax refund claim rejected due to late filing under Finance Act

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a construction firm's refund claim for service tax paid from 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016, following a retrospective exemption, as the claim was filed beyond the six-month period required by section 102 (1) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that the one-year limitation under the Central Excise Act did not apply, emphasizing the strict statutory deadline. As the claim was filed late, the issue of unjust enrichment was deemed irrelevant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on 17.08.2022.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed beyond the stipulated period under section 102 (1) of the Finance Act.
2. Applicability of unjust enrichment in the case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a construction firm, filed a refund claim challenging the rejection by the Assistant Commissioner based on limitation, unjust enrichment, and violation of Finance Act provisions. The claim pertained to service tax paid from 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016, following a retrospective exemption introduced by Finance Bill 2016. The claim was filed on 05.10.2017, beyond the stipulated six-month period from the enactment of the Finance Bill, as required by section 102 (1) of the Finance Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment, emphasizing the late filing of the claim.

2. The appellant argued that since the service tax was mistakenly collected due to the retrospective exemption, the limitation period under section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 should apply, allowing the claim filed within one year to be considered timely. However, the Tribunal held that section 102 (1) of the Finance Act explicitly mandated a six-month limitation for filing refund claims under the retrospective exemption. Therefore, the claim filed on 05.10.2017 was beyond the statutory deadline, rendering the issue of unjust enrichment moot.

3. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on precedents where service tax was mistakenly paid despite exemptions. In the present case, service tax was legitimately due at the time, and the subsequent retrospective amendment allowed for a refund within a specific timeframe. As the appellant failed to meet the statutory deadline for filing the refund claim, the issue of unjust enrichment did not require consideration. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal, leading to the final dismissal of the appellant's claim on 17.08.2022.

---