2025 (6) TMI 1736 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner Appeals wrongly allowed time-barred service tax refund claim beyond six-month limitation under Notification 6/2015

Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi South, New Delhi Versus M/s NSC Projects (Private) Limited And Principal Commissioner, GST South, New Delhi Versus M/s NSC Projects Private Limited

CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order that sanctioned a service tax refund claim filed beyond the prescribed six-month limitation ... Refund of service tax - rejection on the ground of time limitation - failure to follow judicial discipline - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the amount in question became refundable pursuant to Notification No. 6/2015 dated 14.5.2016 with reference to Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016. The notification itself prescribes time limit of six months w.e.f. 14.05.2016. Admittedly, the refund claim is filed beyond said six months. Still has been sanctioned contrary to the mandate of said notification. The exemption notifications have to be read strictly as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015 (4) TMI 122 - SUPREME COURT]. In the case of Zaigham Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Cus., C. Ex. & ST, Noida [2019 (8) TMI 1567 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] it was held that notification requiring filing of refund application within six months from date of Finance Bill, 2016 receiving assent of President. Court has no jurisdiction to enlarge limitation period provided under a notification which required to be strictly interpreted. Delay in filing refund application not condonable. Conclusion - Irrespective the delay in filing the refund claim is a procedural lapse but there is no reasonable explanation for the occurrence of said delay. A litigant is required to be diligent. The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to follow the judicial discipline. The order under challenge is accordingly, set aside and both the appeals filed by department is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant for service tax paid on construction services provided to the Government is barred by limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016.- Whether the principle of limitation applies to refund claims arising from retrospective exemption of service tax on government construction contracts.- Whether the refund claim was admissible despite being filed beyond the six-month period prescribed by the relevant statutory provisions and notifications.- The applicability of unjust enrichment provisions to the refund claim.- The proper interpretation and application of Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, and related exemption notifications in the context of refund claims.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016, inserted retrospectively with effect from 14.05.2016, prescribes a six-month limitation period for filing refund claims relating to service tax paid on specified construction services provided to the Government during 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016 under contracts entered into before 01.03.2015. The refund claim must be filed within six months from the date the Finance Act, 2016 received Presidential assent (14.05.2016).Precedents cited include the Supreme Court decision in Corporation Bank Vs. Saraswati Abharansala (2010), which deals with principles of limitation and refund, and the more recent Supreme Court ruling in MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (2021), which held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 102 is mandatory and cannot be extended by courts.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provision and noted that the refund claim was filed on 10.02.2017, which is beyond six months from 14.05.2016. The Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications must be strictly construed, as held by the Supreme Court in Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE (2015). The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund without providing reasons to justify departure from the statutory limitation period.Key evidence and findings: The refund claim was initially rejected on limitation grounds by the Assistant Commissioner but was later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without adequate reasoning. The Tribunal observed that the refund claim was filed after the six-month window mandated by Section 102(3) had expired.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the limitation provision strictly, holding that the refund claim was time-barred. It relied on the strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the binding nature of the limitation period, rejecting the appellant's contention that limitation should not apply.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that since the tax was retrospectively exempted, the Government was not entitled to retain amounts collected without authority of law, and thus limitation should not apply. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the limitation period prescribed by the statute is mandatory and cannot be waived. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents to reject the appellant's plea.Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016 and therefore not admissible.Issue 2: Applicability of unjust enrichment provisions and entitlement to refundRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Finance Act and related exemption notifications provide that service tax paid on certain government construction contracts is refundable if paid erroneously or if exemption applies retrospectively. The principle of unjust enrichment generally prevents refund where the claimant has not suffered loss or the amount has not been passed on.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The original adjudicating authority held that unjust enrichment provisions do not apply because the refund amount was directed to be returned to the service receiver (government) from whom the tax was collected. The appellant had also filed an affidavit agreeing to return the refund amount to the original service recipient (MES, Government of India).Key evidence and findings: The refund was sanctioned on the basis that the amount was collected from the service receiver and would be returned to them, thereby negating any claim of unjust enrichment.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal did not expressly overturn this finding but focused primarily on the limitation issue. The fact that unjust enrichment did not bar the refund claim was accepted by the authorities below.Treatment of competing arguments: No significant competing arguments were raised on this point.Conclusion: Unjust enrichment provisions were not applicable, and the appellant was legally eligible for refund on merits, subject to limitation.Issue 3: Interpretation and application of Section 102 of Finance Act, 2016 and related exemption notificationsRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, and Notification No. 6/2015-ST provide retrospective exemption from service tax on construction services for Government contracts entered into before 01.03.2015. The exemption is conditional upon contracts and stamp duty payment dates. The Finance Act, 2016 introduced a six-month limitation period for refund claims.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the exemption was restored subject to specified conditions and that the refund claim must be filed within the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications as mandated by Supreme Court jurisprudence.Key evidence and findings: The refund claim was filed beyond the six-month limitation period. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the claim on limitation grounds, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it without sufficient reasoning. The Tribunal found this approach inconsistent with the statutory mandate.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory provisions strictly, holding that the refund claim was time-barred and that the limitation period could not be extended or ignored.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the retrospective nature of the exemption negated the applicability of limitation. The Tribunal rejected this, relying on precedent and the mandatory language of the statute.Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The exemption notifications have to be read strictly as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015 (318) ELT 583 (SC).''Notification requiring filing of refund application within six months from date of Finance Bill, 2016 receiving assent of President. Court has no jurisdiction to enlarge limitation period provided under a notification which required to be strictly interpreted. Delay in filing refund application not condonable.''The Madhya Pradesh High Court in its impugned order had upheld the order of the Tribunal whereby the application filed on 22-3-2017 for refund of Service Tax paid on construction services provided to the Government Authority during period from 1-3-2015 to 30-9-2015 was held to be barred by the limitation period of six months which was to be computed from 14-5-2016 as stipulated under Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994. The plea of the assessee that the Service Tax having been paid mistakenly during the aforesaid period as the same was not payable, the claim for refund thereof was not hit by bar of limitation period, was misconceived.'Core principles established:- The statutory limitation period under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016 for refund claims is mandatory and must be strictly complied with.- Retrospective exemption does not negate the applicability of limitation.- Exemption notifications and refund provisions must be strictly construed.- Courts and tribunals lack jurisdiction to extend or condone delay beyond the prescribed limitation period.Final determinations:- The refund claim filed beyond six months from the date of assent of the Finance Act, 2016 is barred by limitation and not admissible.- The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund on limitation grounds is set aside.- The appeals filed by the department challenging the refund sanction are allowed.