Page 234 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

136 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
mation from SIPCOT that SIPCOT has deposited the Service Tax with the De-
partment and also getting details of such deposit in the nature of tax paid chal-
lan, the appellant can file the refund - Essential for appellant to get infor-
mation from SIPCOT as to eligibility of the refund - Person who can make the
refund claim having not been specified in Section 104 ibid, the plea put for-
ward by appellants that they were unable to make claim before 30-9-2017 is not
without substance - Appellants were not in a position to file refund claim due
to delay caused by SIPCOT - Thus delay caused by SIPCOT in informing the
appellants has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation - Section
11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of
Finance Act, 1994. [paras 7, 8, 10, 11, 12]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
JSW Dharmatar Port Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 721 (Bom.) — Relied on ................................................................ [Paras 3.1, 9, 12]
Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
— 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) — Referred ................................................................................... [Para 3.1]
Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) — Referred ........................ [Paras 4, 11]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Viswanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Brief facts are that the appellants filed refund claim of Rs.
10,76,803/- on 16-11-2017 for refund of Service Tax paid on development charg-
es, as exempted, with retrospective effect under Section 104(1) of Finance Act,
1994. As per [Section] 104(1) of Finance Act, 2017, the refund claim has to be filed
within six months from the date on which the amendment receives assent of the
President of India. The assent was granted on 31-3-2017. Thus, the refund ought
to have been filed on or before 30-9-2017. The refund claim was filed only on 16-
11-2017, which is beyond the due date. The department issued show cause notice
proposing to reject the refund claim as time-barred. After due process of law, the
original authority rejected the refund claim as time-barred, which was upheld by
Commissioner (Appeals) vide the order impugned in this appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, the Learned Counsel Shri S. Viswanathan
appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that as per Section 104(1) of Fi-
nance Act, 2017, no Service Tax is leviable on one-time upfront amount [premi-
um salami, cost, price, development charges or by whatever name called] in re-
spect of taxable services provided or agreed to be provided by a State Govern-
ment Industrial Development Corporation or Undertaking or Industrial Units by
way of grant of long term lease of 30 years or more of industrial plots, for the
period commencing from 1-6-2007 to 21-9-2016.
3. Section 104(2) provided that refund has to be made of all the service
taxes which has been collected. The appellants had availed the services of
SIPCOT, which is a State Government Public Sector Undertaking and had paid
development charges, for which, SIPCOT had collected the Service Tax. After
introduction of retrospective exemption of Service Tax on the development
charges as stated in Section 104(1), SIPCOT issued letter, dated 27-10-2017 to the
appellant informing the appellant that they can apply for refund of the Service
Tax directly from the Service Tax department within their jurisdiction. The ap-
pellant then procured necessary documents in the nature of duty paid challans
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  298