TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015, wherein and whereby the respondent No. 3 has rejected the refund claim of the petitioner for the Financial Years (FYs) 2009-10 to 2012-2013 declaring the same as time barred under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act"). 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Modh has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited, 2019 (29) GSTL 545 (SC), by which the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Limited Vs. Union of India, 2013 (31) STR 645 (Guj.) has been confirmed. It is submitted that this Court in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Limited (supra) has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity of the petitioner towards its members along with interest can be determined by the respondent authorities. 4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Shah has submitted that in fact, the petitioner filed the application seeking refund claim on 29.12.2014, after the decision of this Court in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Limited (supra) on 25.03.2013 and hence, the respondents have precisely rejected the claim of refund for the FYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 as they are expressly time barred under the provisions of section 11B of the Act and the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries LTD. Vs. Union of India, 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) and has urged that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he FYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 declaring the same as time barred under the provision of section 11B of the Act as the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of one year. 8. It is the case of the respondents that since the application is belatedly filed by the petitioner seeking refund claim for the FYs 2009-10 onwards till 2012-13, the claim cannot be accepted, whereas the petitioner has contested that once the action is declared as "ultra vires" to the statutory provisions, limitation would not come in the way of the petitioner in claiming the refund of service tax. 9. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Club Limited (supra), wherein the Apex Court, after a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... way it is looked at, what is important is that the expression "body of persons" cannot possibly include within it bodies corporate. 84. We are therefore of the view that the Jharkhand High Court and the Gujarat High Court are correct in their view of the law in following Young Men's Indian Association (supra). We are also of the view that from 2005 onwards, the Finance Act of 1994 does not purport to levy service tax on members' clubs in the incorporated form." 10. Thus, while confirming the directions and judgement and order of this Court passed in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Limited (supra), the Apex Court has held that from 2005 onward, the Finance Act, 1994 does not purport to levy the service tax on members' clubs i....