Order Date: 08 June 2022

Facts:

• The appellant, Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt. Ltd., execute work for the State Government being CPWD and PWD, for which they were entitled to exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST. AS the exemption lapsed w.e.f. 1.4.2015, the appellant started depositing the tax. Subsequently, the Government extended the exemption benefit by making retrospective amendment in Notification No.25/2012-ST vide amending notification no.9/2016-ST dated 1.3.2016.
•  The appellant finding that it is also entitled to refund for the services provided to Government Authorities during the relevant period, for which tax had already been deposited, but exemption was extended with retrospective effect, and accordingly applied for refund of Rs.22,29,461/- and Rs.18,15,725/- by dispatching the refund application by speed post.
• The postal envelope sent by speed post containing the refund applications were returned by postal authorities on 25.11.2016 with the remarks “refused to accept” by the Department. Thereafter, the appellant filed the refund application in person and the same were filed on 5.12.2016.
• Revenue rejected the refund application holding it to be  barred by limitation. In response, the appellant contended that they had submitted the refund claim timely within six months as per Section 102(3) of the Finance Act by speed post, but the speed post was returned with the observation “refused”.

Issue:

• Whether the instant refund application can be rejected on the ground that the period of limitation under Section 11B is expired?

Order:

• The Tribunal observed that there is sufficient evidence on record that appellant had dispatched the refund applications by speed post on 8.11.2016, which were returned by the Department by refusing to accept. Further, refusing of refund by the Department is evident from the facts on record, as the Service Tax Division has been shifted from CGO Complex, New Delhi to Ambedkar Bhawan, Rohini, New Delhi. 
• Thus, it is held that the appellant had dispatched the refund application well within the period of limitation, which was expiring on 14.11.2016. Such dispatch on 8.11.2016 is also proved by the fact that the appellant has soon thereafter receipt back of the mail with the remark “refused to accept”, has again filed the application by hand on 5.12.2011. In this view of the matter, it is held that the refund application has been filed within the limitation as prescribed under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act.
• Further, it was also held that no limitation is applicable for refund in the facts and circumstances of the present case, due to the amount lying with the Revenue having the nature of revenue deposit.
• The Tribunal directed the adjudicating Authority to grant refund along with interest.