https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387332 SEZ service tax refund claims under the exemption notification were examined on three procedural objections: delayed receipt of the approved list of services, alleged lack of documentary proof of receipt and use of services in the SEZ, and filing beyond one year from payment to the vendor. The commentary notes that the notification did not require prior approval before filing refund, that the prescribed particulars had been furnished without a specific finding of non-compliance, and that the limitation objection was not treated as fatal where the authority had discretion to extend time. The practical result was that procedural defects did not defeat an otherwise eligible refund claim. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:34:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387332 SEZ service tax refund claims under the exemption notification were examined on three procedural objections: delayed receipt of the approved list of services, alleged lack of documentary proof of receipt and use of services in the SEZ, and filing beyond one year from payment to the vendor. The commentary notes that the notification did not require prior approval before filing refund, that the prescribed particulars had been furnished without a specific finding of non-compliance, and that the limitation objection was not treated as fatal where the authority had discretion to extend time. The practical result was that procedural defects did not defeat an otherwise eligible refund claim. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387332