2018 (2) TMI 1255 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Management, maintenance and repair services - unjust enrichment - Held that - the appellant has not produced the complete contracts entered into between it and the service receivers - Since for ascertaining the fact of applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the documents are required to be scrutinized in proper perspective - the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the refund application of the appellant is in consonance with the statutory provisions. Matter remanded back to the Original Authority for verification of the details of the contracts to be produced by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of service tax paid on "Management, maintenance and repair services" under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies in this case.
3. Whether the appellant provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the service tax was not passed on to the service recipient.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant contended that as per Section 98 of the Finance Act, 2012, no service tax was payable on the services provided. The refund claim was rejected by the Original Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that the service tax incidence was passed on to the service recipient. The appellant argued that the contract details showed that the tax burden was not transferred. The Tribunal found that complete contracts were not submitted for scrutiny. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for verification of the contracts.

Issue 2: The Revenue argued that since the contract specified that the value was inclusive of service tax, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied. The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's stance but emphasized the need to verify if the tax burden was actually borne by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to the case law precedent to determine the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issue 3: The appellant claimed that the tax burden was not passed on to the service recipient based on the contract conditions. The Tribunal noted the lack of complete contract documents and the importance of scrutinizing them to ascertain the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for further verification and examination of the contract details.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Original Authority for a thorough examination of the contracts to determine whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of the service tax paid, considering the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the evidence regarding the tax burden not being passed on to the service recipient.