9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 625 - HC - Service TaxRecovery of Refund - GTA service - Appeal for quashing a show cause notice for recovery of refund already made dismissed - Held that - the show cause notice was issued on 20.7.2000. Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 made it clear that any refund already made could be recovered only within the period of 30 days from the date on which Finance Act, 2000 received the assent of the President and brought-forth of an amendment under Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, to Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 received the assent on 12.5.2000. Therefore, the show cause notice was not in accordance with Section 117. Hence, the substantial questions of law need not be answered at all as the claim for recovery of the refund was not been made in accordance with Section 117. Therefore, the order passed by Tribunal is valid. - Decided against the revenue
Issues:
1. Appeal challenging the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal arising from the quashing of a show cause notice for recovery of a refund already made. 2. Liability of the recipient of services of Clearing and Forwarding Agents to pay service tax. 3. Validity of the amendment under Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 with retrospective effect. 4. Correctness of the Tribunal's decision regarding the charging provisions under the Finance Act, 1994 for the collection of Service Tax from the recipient of Clearing and Forwarding Agents. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the High Court challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed an appeal arising from the quashing of a show cause notice for the recovery of a refund already made. The issue revolved around the correctness of this order under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The recipient of services of Clearing and Forwarding Agents was held liable to pay service tax under Rule 2(1)(d)(xii) and Rule 2(1)(d)(vii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The first respondent paid service tax amounting to &8377; 27,19,123/- for the period from 16.7.1997 to 31.8.1999. However, subsequent legal developments impacted this liability. 3. The provisions of the Service Tax Rules, under which the first respondent paid the service tax, were struck down by the Supreme Court. A subsequent amendment under Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, with retrospective effect, was introduced. This amendment had implications on the refund already granted to the first respondent. 4. The High Court considered the correctness of the Tribunal's decision on charging provisions under the Finance Act, 1994 for collecting service tax from the recipient of Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The Court analyzed the implications of the amendment and the legal validity of the show cause notice issued for the recovery of the refund already granted. 5. The Court noted that the show cause notice dated 20.7.2000 was not in accordance with Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, which specified a time limit for the recovery of refunds. As the notice did not comply with this provision, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the claim for recovery of the refund must align with the statutory requirements under Section 117. 6. Ultimately, the High Court's decision centered on the procedural aspect of the show cause notice and its alignment with the statutory provisions of the Finance Act, 2000. The Court's analysis focused on the legal validity of the recovery process and the necessity for compliance with the prescribed timelines for refund recovery under the relevant legislation.
|
