https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374963 A refund could not be denied merely because the invoice omitted the service recipient's address where Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and its proviso did not require that detail for the relevant class of recipient; the rejection on that formal defect was therefore unsustainable. However, condonation of delay in filing the refund claim required a concrete and sufficient explanation, and a vague assertion of unavoidable circumstances was inadequate. The claim was thus time-barred to that extent, and refusal to condone delay was justified. The result was a partial allowance of the appeal, limited to the refund disallowed for the invoice defect. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:07:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374963 A refund could not be denied merely because the invoice omitted the service recipient's address where Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and its proviso did not require that detail for the relevant class of recipient; the rejection on that formal defect was therefore unsustainable. However, condonation of delay in filing the refund claim required a concrete and sufficient explanation, and a vague assertion of unavoidable circumstances was inadequate. The claim was thus time-barred to that extent, and refusal to condone delay was justified. The result was a partial allowance of the appeal, limited to the refund disallowed for the invoice defect. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374963