### Limitation for Service Tax Refund Under Section 104 Retrospectively Commences from Date of Service Provider's Certificate

The Appellant challenged an order by the CESTAT which rejected a service tax refund claim as barred by limitation

Section 104 was inserted into the Finance Act, 2017 with retrospective effect, exempting one-time upfront payments for long-term leases (30+ years) of industrial plots provided by State Government undertakings between June 2007 and September 2016

The Act received Presidential assent on March 31, 2017, and Section 104(3) required refund applications to be filed within six months of that date

The Appellant applied for the refund on February 26, 2018, beyond the six-month window from the date of assent, but within six months of receiving a vital tax payment confirmation certificate from SIPCOT on December 19, 2017

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in rejecting the refund claim as time-barred under the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017

2. Whether the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of Presidential assent or the date the service provider (SIPCOT) issued the necessary payment certificate

Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017, which provides retrospective exemption from service tax for specific industrial leases.

Sub-section (3) mandates that refund applications be made within six months of the President’s assent (March 31, 2017).

M/s. JSW Dharmatar Port Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 721 (Bom.)], which established that for the purpose of claiming such refunds, the limitation period must be reckoned from the date of the certificate issued by the authority (SIPCOT) confirming the payment of service tax.

The court's reasoning on how a law applied to the facts: The Court observed that an application for a refund under the retrospectively amended law could not be effectively processed or entertained without a supporting certificate from SIPCOT confirming the actual payment of service tax.

While the statute strictly mentions six months from the date of Presidential assent, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach over a narrow, technical interpretation. It reasoned that since the SIPCOT certificate—a mandatory prerequisite for the refund—was only issued to the Appellant on December 19, 2017, the clock for limitation should logically commence from that date. Following the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court, the Court determined that the Appellant's filing on February 26, 2018, fell within the permissible six-month window when calculated from the date of the certificate.

The appeal was allowed, and the Respondent was directed to consider the refund application and pass orders on merits within two months.