https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770373 CESTAT Chennai rejected appellant's refund claim for service tax paid on development charges collected by SIPCOT. The tribunal upheld rejection on grounds of 31-day delay beyond Section 104 time limit, finding the limitation period mandatory and not directory. Court distinguished JSW Dharmatar Port case, holding that refund claims must follow statutory provisions and cannot rely on Limitation Act principles. The tribunal ruled that since appellant bore ultimate tax incidence rather than the Trust who deposited the tax, appellant lacked standing to claim refund. Appeal dismissed as time-barred and for lack of proper claimant status. en-us Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 May 2025 08:36:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770373 CESTAT Chennai rejected appellant's refund claim for service tax paid on development charges collected by SIPCOT. The tribunal upheld rejection on grounds of 31-day delay beyond Section 104 time limit, finding the limitation period mandatory and not directory. Court distinguished JSW Dharmatar Port case, holding that refund claims must follow statutory provisions and cannot rely on Limitation Act principles. The tribunal ruled that since appellant bore ultimate tax incidence rather than the Trust who deposited the tax, appellant lacked standing to claim refund. Appeal dismissed as time-barred and for lack of proper claimant status. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770373