Refund claim limitation under service tax notification may be extended where bona fide misunderstanding shows reasonable cause.

The refund notification required claims to be filed within six months of actual payment of service tax, but it also allowed the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to extend that period. The limitation was therefore not absolute, and a bona fide misunderstanding about quarterly filing supported exercise of the discretionary extension power. On that basis, the delay in filing the refund claims was condoned and the claims were treated as within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing refund claims under clause 2(f) of Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. dated 03.03.2009 was liable to be condoned and the refund claims treated as within time.

Analysis: The refund notification required filing of the claim within six months from the date of actual payment of service tax, but it also empowered the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to permit extension of the period. The limitation condition was therefore not absolute. The appellant had filed the claims on the understanding that refund was to be claimed quarterly, and if the filing date was reckoned with reference to the end of the quarter, the claims were within time. In these circumstances, the delay arose from a bona fide misunderstanding and constituted reasonable cause for exercise of the discretionary power under the notification.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the refund claims was condoned and the refund claims were allowed.

---