https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428585 The refund notification required claims to be filed within six months of actual payment of service tax, but it also allowed the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to extend that period. The limitation was therefore not absolute, and a bona fide misunderstanding about quarterly filing supported exercise of the discretionary extension power. On that basis, the delay in filing the refund claims was condoned and the claims were treated as within time. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Oct 2022 08:35:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428585 The refund notification required claims to be filed within six months of actual payment of service tax, but it also allowed the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to extend that period. The limitation was therefore not absolute, and a bona fide misunderstanding about quarterly filing supported exercise of the discretionary extension power. On that basis, the delay in filing the refund claims was condoned and the claims were treated as within time. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428585