2014 (1) TMI 567 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Service of goods transport operator - Commissioner allowed refund claim - Held that - as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder, the service provider was to collect and pay the service tax. In view of this, the respondents are liable to pay service tax in respect of the services provided - As per the validation provisions, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, any service tax refunded is recoverable within a period of 30 days from the date of the Finance Act, 2000 - in view of the retrospective amendment, the respondents are not entitled for any refund. Even if any case where the refund is allowed, the same is to be recovered hence the impugned order is not sustainable - Following decision of Laghu Udyog Bharti 1999 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal allowing refund claim.
2. Liability of the respondents to pay service tax.
3. Retrospective amendment to Finance Act, 2000 affecting service tax liability.
4. Validity of refund claim based on retrospective amendment.
5. Applicability of Supreme Court decision in Laghu Udyog Bharti case.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue filed appeals against the order-in-appeal that allowed the refund claim filed by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the refund claim based on certain grounds.

2. The issue at hand was the liability of the respondents to pay service tax for the services provided. The Revenue argued that as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Rules, the service provider was responsible for collecting and paying the service tax. Therefore, the respondents were deemed liable to pay service tax for the services rendered.

3. The retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, 2000 played a crucial role in determining the service tax liability of the respondents. The Finance Act, 2000, under Sections 116 and 117, retrospectively amended relevant provisions. This retrospective amendment impacted the service tax liability of the respondents.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. vs. CCE. However, the Revenue contended that due to the retrospective amendment, any service tax refunded was recoverable within 30 days from the date of the Finance Act, 2000. Therefore, the Revenue argued that the respondents were not entitled to any refund.

5. The respondents had filed the refund claim citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the Laghu Udyog Bharti case. The Finance Act provisions were retrospectively amended following the Supreme Court's ruling on the ultra vires nature of the previous provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue based on the retrospective amendment.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, 2000.