Nokia Solutions And Networks India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The appeal before CESTAT Chandigarh challenged an order dated 22.06.2016 rejecting the appellant’s service tax refund claims aggregating to ₹2,27,14,436 for the period July 2012 to September 2013 on the ground that the claims were barred by the one-year limitation prescribed under Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. The appellant, a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit, had received approved input services for its authorised operations and filed refund claims in respect of service tax paid on specified services. Initially, the adjudicating authority rejected the claims on multiple grounds, including limitation and alleged non-fulfilment of notification conditions. However, in appeal, only the issue of limitation remained, as the other grounds were dropped.
The appellant contended that Section 26(1) of the SEZ Act grants exemption from service tax on taxable services provided to SEZ units for authorised operations and that Section 26(2) requires conditions to be prescribed through rules framed under the SEZ Act. It submitted that Rule 22 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 does not prescribe any limitation period for filing refund claims and that Section 51 of the SEZ Act gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of other laws. The appellant relied upon the judgment of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in GMR Aerospace Engineering Limited and subsequent decisions of the Tribunal holding that conditions prescribed in notifications issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot restrict the statutory exemption available under the SEZ Act.
