https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387012 A refund claim by an SEZ unit under Notification No. 12/2013-ST was held to be within the prescribed one-year period for the relevant quarter, so rejection as time-barred was unsustainable. The record also showed that the claim for July 2016 to September 2016 was filed within time, and the notification allowed one claim per quarter. Rejection was further criticised because it was issued without a speaking order and in breach of natural justice. The operative effect is that a timely quarterly refund claim cannot be denied on limitation, and an unreasoned order passed without fair opportunity cannot stand. en-us Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Oct 2020 12:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387012 A refund claim by an SEZ unit under Notification No. 12/2013-ST was held to be within the prescribed one-year period for the relevant quarter, so rejection as time-barred was unsustainable. The record also showed that the claim for July 2016 to September 2016 was filed within time, and the notification allowed one claim per quarter. Rejection was further criticised because it was issued without a speaking order and in breach of natural justice. The operative effect is that a timely quarterly refund claim cannot be denied on limitation, and an unreasoned order passed without fair opportunity cannot stand. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387012