2022 (8) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund application on 19.06.2017 consequent upon extension of retrospective exemption on specified services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority during the period from 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016 in terms of Section (102) of Finance Act, 1994 by way of amendment to Finance Act in 2016. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they have filed a refund claim for Rs.1,33,257/- on 08.11.2016 which was sanctioned vide refund order dated 07.02.2017, however, due to a clerical mistake refund amount of Rs.1,73,753/- remain to be filed; the refund claim cannot be denied for a clerical mistake. Learned Counsel for the appellant further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Corporation Bank 2010 (18) S.T.R. 513 (S.C.). 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. On going through the rival submissions, I find that Section 102 of the Finance Act provides as under:- "102. Special provision for exemption in certain cases relating to construction of Government buildings. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 66B, no service tax shall be levied or collected during the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2015 and ending with the 29th day of February, 2016 (both days inclusive), in respect of taxable services provided to the Government, a local authority or a Governmental authority, by way of construction, erection, commissioni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch after the presidential assent to the amendment has been accorded. It is not a case of the appellant that they were not aware of the legal provisions in this regard. It is on record that a similar claim has been made by the appellant for Rs.1, 33,257/- on 08.11.2016. It is not possible to accept the contention that if a refund filed first is within time, the subsequent refunds should also be treated to have been filed in time. Each claim of refund is a separate application and needs to be treated separate; has to be sanctioned separately. The proposition of the applicant leads to absurd conclusions as the sanctity of limitation is lost. Therefore, the appellant's claim that the subsequent refund filed on 19.06.2017 be treated as part of t....