2023 (4) TMI 260 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim rejected for late filing, subsequent concealment incurs penalty.

M/s. Sekhar Chandra Poddar Versus Commr. of CGST & CX, Shillong Commissionerate

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a refund claim due to being filed beyond the 6-month time limit specified in Section 102 of the Finance Bill 2016. ... Refund claim - time limitation - rejection of refund claim on the ground of the same being filed belatedly - HELD THAT:- The President’s assent to the Finance Bill was received on 15/5/2016. Hence the Refund Claim was required to be filed on or before 14/11/2016. When the statute itself specifies the time limit for such refund claims, which is six months in this case, if the same is filed after six months, the same cannot be entertained by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has correctly rejected their Refund Claim vide OIO dated 31.01.2017. After rejection of Refund Claim by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground of limitation, the Appellant cannot take the stand that the same refund should be granted to them without any time limit on the ground that Section 11B is not applicable to them, as has been done by them in their second Refund Claim. As the refund claim is specifically covered by the Clauses of Section 102(3) of the Finance Bill 2016, and was rejected once, the Appellant’s attempt to get the same refund under a general category by concealing the facts is illegal - there are no merits in the Appeal filed by the Appellant and the same is dismissed. These facts show that the Appellant has concealed the facts before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal, trying to mislead them which might have resulted in an erroneous Order being passed. Considering the seriousness of the acts of the Appellant, it is deemed a fit case for imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the Appellant, to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. Copy of such Deposit is to be furnished to CESTAT Registry by 30/04/2023 - appeal disposed off. Issues involved: Refund claim rejection on grounds of being filed belatedly, concealment of facts in subsequent refund claims, applicability of time limit for refund claims as per Section 102 of Finance Bill 2016.Refund Claim Rejection on Grounds of Being Filed Belatedly:The Appellant submitted a refund claim for Rs.15,85,089/-, stating that it was sent by Speed Post on 08/11/2016 and physically filed on 21/11/2016. The Authorized Representative argued that the claim was filed after the 6-month time limit specified in Section 102 of the Finance Bill, 2016, as the first claim was received beyond 14/11/2016. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim on the basis of limitation, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the claim being filed beyond the stipulated time frame.Concealment of Facts in Subsequent Refund Claims:The Appellant, after the rejection of the initial refund claim, filed another claim for the same amount on 25/04/2017, without disclosing the earlier rejection. The Commissioner (Appeals) discovered the previous rejection and dismissed the subsequent claim. The Tribunal expressed displeasure at the Appellant's attempts to conceal facts and mislead the authorities, leading to wasted time and erroneous orders. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the Appellant for such actions.Applicability of Time Limit for Refund Claims as per Section 102 of Finance Bill 2016:The President's assent to the Finance Bill 2016 was received on 15/5/2016, requiring refund claims to be filed by 14/11/2016. The Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the claim filed after the specified time limit. The Tribunal emphasized that claims falling under Section 102(3) of the Finance Bill 2016 cannot be entertained if filed after the stipulated period, and attempts to obtain refunds by concealing facts are deemed illegal.This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing refund claims, the consequences of concealing facts in subsequent claims, and the legal implications of attempting to obtain refunds through misrepresentation. The Tribunal's decision serves as a reminder of the necessity for transparency and honesty in dealings with tax authorities to avoid legal repercussions.