Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim for service tax under section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for refund claim was the date of Order-In-Original, not payment date. No service tax liability existed, so no short payment occurred. Appellant's deposit remained unappropriated against tax liability. Citing Hon'ble Madras High Court decision, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as refund claim was timely filed.
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim for service tax under section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for refund claim was the date of Order-In-Original, not payment date. No service tax liability existed, so no short payment occurred. Appellant's deposit remained unappropriated against tax liability. Citing Hon'ble Madras High Court decision, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as refund claim was timely filed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
