Page 238 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

140 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
ignored for the purpose of computing the limitation for making refund ap-
plication under sub-section (3) of Section 103 of the Finance Act, 1994.
15. This conclusion, however, would not enable any of the petitioners to
claim the refund. This is so because as noted, even ignoring the entire peri-
od that the Ministry had consumed in granting the certificate, none of the
refund applications of the petitioners’ would come within the period of six
months from 14-5-2015. It was in this context, strenuous efforts were made
by the Counsel for the petitioners to persuade us to accept the refund appli-
cations beyond six months inter alia on the ground that limitation pre-
scribed is not mandatory.
19. It can thus be seen that looking to the statutory provisions and the
language used therein, Courts have often hold that period of limitation for
claiming refund is mandatory. Further, the contention that sub-section (3)
of Section 103 retains the period of limitation of one year prescribed in the
Excise Act and is aimed to protect such refund application which cover the
period beyond such period, cannot be accepted. As noted, Section 103 con-
tains a self-contained code, a complete mechanism for claiming refund. For
claiming refund under the said provision, limitation period prescribed
elsewhere cannot be adopted ignoring the period prescribed in sub-section
(3) of Section 103.”
10. It is noteworthy to mention that in Section 103, there is no confusion
as to who should make the application for refund. The Service Tax therein was
paid directly by the service provider and, therefore, after obtaining certificates
from the concerned Ministry, the application for refund can be made. In the pre-
sent case, the Service Tax was paid by the appellants to the service provider
(SIPCOT), who has deposited the same with the Central Government. Thus, it
was indeed necessary for the appellant to approach SIPCOT to get necessary in-
formation as to whether they have deposited the tax and obtain documents from
SIPCOT for filing the refund claims. The position is, therefore, almost analogous
with the condition in Section 103, which mandates producing a certificate from
the concerned Ministry.
11. The Authorised Representative for Revenue has relied upon the de-
cision in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises (supra), and strongly argued that when
the period of limitation has been prescribed in the statute, the Tribunal cannot
condone delay beyond the prescribed period. In the present case, the appellants
were not in a position to file refund claim due to the delay caused by SIPCOT.
After getting information from SIPCOT there has been no wanton delay on the
part of appellant. Therefore, the delay caused by SIPCOT in informing the appel-
lants has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. The appellants
cannot be expected to perform a task beyond their control.
12. From the discussions made above as well as respectfully following
the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. JSW Dharma-
tar Port Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that the rejection of refund claim on the

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  302