Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

about 2 months ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š— š˜‚š—ŗš—Æš—®š—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—¦š—˜š—­ š—„š—²š—³š˜‚š—»š—± š—–š—¹š—®š—¶š—ŗš˜€ šŸ“¢ The Tribunal held: "Exemption from service tax for authorized operations in SEZs cannot be denied on technical grounds like filing delays. Refund entitlement depends on SEZ Act conditions, not additional terms in exemption notifications."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s. Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd., a SEZ unit manufacturing aircraft components. š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the refund can be denied based on the one-year filing limitation or duplicate claims for the same quarter.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal emphasized that SEZ operations authorized under the SEZ Act are inherently exempt from service tax, regardless of notification conditions or time limits. Since tax cannot be levied or collected on authorized SEZ services, refunds should be granted after verifying documentation.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s. Tal Manufacturing Solutions Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼. 86575 of 2019 š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 31 August 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling underscores that SEZ tax exemptions cannot be restricted by notification terms. Refunds must be processed if claims meet SEZ Act requirements.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own