TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01/07/2013, a SEZ unit claiming refund of service tax was barred from including invoices relating to a previous quarter in a refund claim filed for the next quarter, so long as only one claim was filed per quarter and the claim was within time.
Analysis: The notification required the refund claim to be filed within one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax was made, and also required the SEZ unit or developer to submit only one refund claim for every quarter. The quarterly requirement was held to be procedural, intended to regulate filing and processing of claims, and not a restriction that confined a claim only to invoices of that same quarter. On a conjoint reading of the clauses, there was no prohibition on carrying forward unclaimed invoices of an earlier quarter into a later quarterly claim, provided the claim was otherwise within the prescribed time limit.
Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected merely because it included invoices from a previous quarter, and the assessee was entitled to refund.
Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the refund appeal was allowed with consequential relief according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: A quarterly refund-filing requirement in a notification is procedural where the notification separately prescribes the substantive time limit, and it does not prohibit inclusion of earlier-quarter invoices in a later quarterly refund claim unless the notification expressly says so.
TaxTMI 
