2016 (8) TMI 189 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of the service tax paid under protest by them in view of the audit objection - it was submitted that the contract for laying pipeline for water supply of WSIS to Namakkal Municipality, which is for the distribution of drinking water and hence is not chargeable to service tax and the service tax paid by them under protest has to be refunded - Held that - both the lower authorities have recorded a finding that the appellant has not submitted copy of the tender notice and other documents in order to come to a conclusion that the work executed by the appellant is under works contract . On a specific query from the Bench, learned Chartered Accountant submits that they will be and are in a position to produce all the documents and justify their claim for the refund of the amount. Since the documents which are annexed to the appeal memoranda and produced before the Tribunal for the first time, we are of the considered view that the adjudicating authority should be given an opportunity to examine the same and come to a conclusion on the refund claim filed by the appellant. Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for refund of service tax paid under protest
- Interpretation of works contract services
- Submission of necessary documents for refund claim

Analysis:
1. Eligibility for refund of service tax paid under protest:
The main issue in this case was whether the appellant was eligible for a refund of the service tax paid under protest. The appellant contended that the service tax paid for laying a pipeline for water supply should be refunded as it was not chargeable to service tax. The lower authorities held that the appellant voluntarily paid the service tax under the category of "Works Contract Services," making the refund claim not entertainable. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had not submitted all necessary documents to support their claim. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority for a fresh consideration after the appellant submits the required documents.

2. Interpretation of works contract services:
The lower authorities had concluded that the appellant's work fell under the category of "works contract" based on the information available. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had not provided all the relevant documents initially. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reexamine the issue after the appellant submits the necessary documents. This decision indicates the importance of proper documentation in determining the applicability of works contract services for tax purposes.

3. Submission of necessary documents for refund claim:
The Tribunal emphasized the significance of submitting all relevant documents to support a refund claim. The appellant, through their Chartered Accountant, assured the Tribunal that they could produce all the required documents to justify their claim for a refund. As the documents were not previously presented and were crucial for the case, the Tribunal decided to give the adjudicating authority the opportunity to review the documents and make a decision based on the complete set of information. This underscores the procedural aspect of providing complete documentation to substantiate refund claims in tax matters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the first appellate authority for a fresh consideration based on the complete set of documents to be submitted by the appellant. The decision highlights the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to procedural requirements in tax refund cases to ensure a fair and just determination of eligibility for refunds.