2015 (12) TMI 884 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - service tax paid on GTA service twice by them due to clerical error - Held that - Appellant has produced CA certificate before the adjudicating authority in support of their claim for satisfaction of the adjudicating authority. Instead of examining of these documents, he rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not produced any supporting documents. In the absence of any particular document, which is required for his satisfaction, the refund claim cannot be rejected by the adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. In these circumstances, I find that as the appellant has been able to prove that they have paid service tax twice during the month of March, 2013. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to refund of the excess service tax paid by them. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the refund claim of the appellant alongwith interest to be paid to the appellant within thirty days of receipt this order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection by lower authorities due to clerical error in payment of service tax.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid twice on GTA service due to a clerical error in March 2013. The payment error was reflected in the ST3 returns, and the appellant provided the challan as proof. However, the lower authorities rejected the refund claim, citing lack of supporting documents. The appellant produced a CA certificate to support their claim, but the adjudicating authority still rejected the claim without examining the documents. The appellate authority also upheld the rejection based on the absence of specific required documents. The tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had indeed paid the service tax twice and had provided evidence to support their claim. Consequently, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the refund claim with interest to be paid within thirty days.

This judgment highlights the importance of examining all relevant documents and evidence presented by the appellant to determine the validity of a refund claim. The tribunal emphasized that the absence of a specific document required for the adjudicating authority's satisfaction should not be a reason to reject a refund claim if other evidence establishes the claim's validity. The decision underscores the principle that a claimant should not be penalized for procedural deficiencies if the substance of the claim is supported by credible evidence.