2017 (3) TMI 424

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch, the learned Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Gandhidham, Kutch has rejected the claim of the refund of service tax filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also further prayed for appropriate writ, direction and order inter alia contending delay in filing the Refund Application dated 11.08.2016 before the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Gandhidham Kutch and further directing the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Gandhidham Kutch to consider the claim of the refund of service tax filed by the petitioner on its merits without going into question of limitation. 2.0. That the petitioner filed refund claim of service tax of Rs. 38,17,811/- being service tax paid during FY 2013-14. That the said re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) 293 ELT 496 as well as decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Natraj and Venkat Associates represented by its Partner A Venkat vs. Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax decided on 20.10.2009 in WP No. 15357 of 2009 : 2010(249) ELT 337 (Mad), it is requested to allow the present appeal and grant the relief as prayed for. 4.0. Heard Shri Jay Kansara, learned advocate for the petitioner. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the petitioner claim refund of service tax paid during the financial year 2013-14, more particularly, for the period between the 18.6.2013 to 31.03.2014. It is also not in dispute that the refund application was made on 19.08.2016 i.e. after a period of almost two years and si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egnum period has not been explained at all. 6.0. Now, so far as reliefs claimed by the petitioner directing the adjudicating authority to condone the delay in filing the refund application dated 11.08.2016 is concerned, no relief can be granted and / or no writ can be issued contrary to the statute. Section 11B of the Act provides the period of limitation. Therefore, any relief directing the adjudicating authority either to condone the delay in filing the refund application and / or directing the Assistant Commissioner to consider the claim of the refund of service tax filed by the petitioner on merits without going into question of limitation would tantamount to nullify the statutory provisions contained in Section 11B of the Act. Under....