https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381440 Refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST was held not to be time-barred where the application was filed within one year from the end of the quarter and the notification itself allowed extension of the prescribed period; the delay could therefore be condoned and the claim not rejected on limitation. For proportionate refund of common input services, DTA sales made from an SEZ unit were treated as part of the unit's turnover because they formed part of authorised operations under SEZ law. The refund computation was thus required to include such turnover, and exclusion of DTA sales was held to be incorrect. en-us Thu, 09 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:38:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381440 Refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST was held not to be time-barred where the application was filed within one year from the end of the quarter and the notification itself allowed extension of the prescribed period; the delay could therefore be condoned and the claim not rejected on limitation. For proportionate refund of common input services, DTA sales made from an SEZ unit were treated as part of the unit's turnover because they formed part of authorised operations under SEZ law. The refund computation was thus required to include such turnover, and exclusion of DTA sales was held to be incorrect. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 09 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381440