CA Bimal Jain
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (“the Appellant”) filed a refund claim before the Delhi Commissionerate for the amount of Service tax paid on the services received for construction of a bridge since Commercial or Industrial Construction service excluded construction of a bridge. However, the refund claim was rejected on the ground of beyond jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred a claim for refund before the Bilaspur Commissionerate where the refund claim was rejected on the ground of period of limitation and that the Appellant is falling under the Delhi jurisdiction& not under Bilaspur jurisdiction.
Period involved: May 17, 2011 to August 12, 2011
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)],held that rejecting the claim arbitrarily on the point of jurisdiction, is not correct and Thus, the Appellant is entitled to refund since the claim is found to be within the period of limitation and further, initially filed its refund claim before the Delhi Commissionerate and subsequently, before the Bilaspur Commissionerate as well.
(Author can be reached at Email: firstname.lastname@example.org)
Do you think #GST Council should provide option to Revise Form GSTR-3B?— Tax Guru (@taxguru_in) November 13, 2017
Please Comment, Like, Vote and Retweet the Poll.