https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763023 Refund claims for service tax paid on services used for authorised SEZ operations could not be rejected as time-barred where the notification allowed extension of the filing period and the authority failed to consider the request for condonation with a speaking order. The tribunal also held that refund could not be denied on the basis that payment to the service provider was made beyond the relevant quarter, because the notification did not impose any such quarter-based restriction. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the extension request and the refund entitlement issues, with earlier remand directions left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Dec 2024 11:54:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763023 Refund claims for service tax paid on services used for authorised SEZ operations could not be rejected as time-barred where the notification allowed extension of the filing period and the authority failed to consider the request for condonation with a speaking order. The tribunal also held that refund could not be denied on the basis that payment to the service provider was made beyond the relevant quarter, because the notification did not impose any such quarter-based restriction. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the extension request and the refund entitlement issues, with earlier remand directions left undisturbed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763023