Page 236 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

138 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
riod. The contention put forward by the appellants that the date on which
SIPCOT informed them has to be reckoned for computing the period of limita-
tion cannot be accepted.
5. Heard both sides.
6. For better appreciation, Section 104(1) of the Finance Act, 2017 is re-
produced as under :-
“104. Special provision for exemption in certain cases relating to long
term lease of industrial plots. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in Section 66, as it stood prior to the 1st day of July, 2012, or in Section 66B,
no Service Tax, leviable on one time upfront amount [premium, salami,
cost, price, development charge or by whatever name called] in respect of
taxable service provided or agreed to be provided by a State Government
Industrial Development Corporation or Undertaking or Industrial Units by
way of grant of long term lease of thirty years or more of industrial plots,
shall be levied or collected during the period commencing from the 1st day
of June, 2007 and ending with the 21st day of September, 2016 (both days
inclusive).
(2) Refund shall be made of all such Service Tax which has been collected,
but which would not have been so collected, had sub-section (1) been in
force at all material times.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, an application
for claim of refund of Service Tax shall be made within a period of six
months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2017 receives the assent of
the President.”
7. As seen from the above quoted Section, the refund has to be made of
all the Service Tax which has been collected. Sub-section (3) of the said provision
specifies that the refund of Service Tax shall be made within a period of six
months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2017 receives the assent of the
President. The said bill received the assent of the President on 31-3-2017. Thus,
the refund claim, ought to have been filed on or before 30-9-2017. The appellant
has filed refund claim only on 16-11-2017. They have explained the reasons for
the delay in filing the refund claim. The Service Tax on development charges was
collected by SIPCOT, who is the service provider. Thus, SIPCOT has collected
Service Tax from appellants and deposited the same with the Government. The
appellant though eligible to claim refund of Service Tax paid by them would be
able to file refund claim only if they produce sufficient documents to show that
SIPCOT has deposited the Service Tax with the Government. In case the Service
Tax is not deposited with the Government and retained by SIPCOT, it would be
a situation of only returning the Service Tax by SIPCOT to the appellant. In such
circumstances, there would be no question of filing a refund claim. Thus only
after getting information from SIPCOT that SIPCOT has have deposited the Ser-
vice Tax with the Government and also getting details of such deposit in the na-
ture of tax paid challan, can the appellant file the refund. Thus, it was essential
for the appellant to get information from SIPCOT as to the eligibility of the re-
fund. They also had to obtain the necessary documents in the nature of Service
Tax paid challan of SIPCOT as well as the certificate issued by SIPCOT stating
that they have not claimed any refund.
8. It has to be noted that Section 104 does not identify as to who can
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  300