2018 (8) TMI 1289 - HC - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - Refund claim - Recipient of service - Whether the ld. CESTAT was right in law in holding that the assessee being service recipient was entitled to file the refund claim before its jurisdictional authority instead of jurisdictional authority of the service provider where the service tax was paid? Held that - It is always better to allow the assessee to claim from his jurisdictional Commissioner since it is very easy to claim the same and it is settled preposition that the person who paid the amount to an authority, must claim the refund from the same authority. If question is decided to keep open for the assessee to claim on two places, will lead to criminal wastage of time inasmuch as the non jurisdictional Commissioner has to verify from the Commissioner for the payment made and instead of that it is always better for the convenience of the Central Government to keep it with the jurisdictional Commissioner - the view taken by the Tribunal is correct and is accepted. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction for filing a refund claim.
2. Limitation period for filing a refund claim.
3. Proof of payment of service tax.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction for Filing a Refund Claim:
The primary issue was whether the assessee, being the service recipient, was entitled to file the refund claim before its jurisdictional authority instead of the jurisdictional authority of the service provider where the service tax was paid. The Tribunal held that the assessee could file the refund claim before its jurisdictional authority. The court upheld this view, emphasizing that it is more convenient and efficient for the assessee to claim the refund from its own jurisdictional authority rather than the service provider's jurisdictional authority. This prevents unnecessary complications and delays, as the non-jurisdictional Commissioner would otherwise need to verify the payment from the original Commissioner.

2. Limitation Period for Filing a Refund Claim:
The second issue was whether the limitation period of one year should be counted from the date of issue of the credit note by the service provider or from the date of payment of service tax. The Tribunal concluded that the limitation period should start from the date of the credit note issuance. The court agreed with this interpretation, noting that the prices were provisional until the issuance of the credit note by the service provider, which finalized the prices. Therefore, the relevant date for the limitation period should be the date of the credit note, making the refund claim timely and not barred by limitation.

3. Proof of Payment of Service Tax:
The third issue was whether a letter from the service provider to its jurisdictional officer was sufficient proof of payment of service tax. The Tribunal found that such a letter was adequate proof. The court upheld this finding, indicating that the service provider's letter to its jurisdictional officer sufficed as evidence of the payment of service tax, thus supporting the assessee's refund claim.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision on all issues. The judgment emphasized the practicality and fairness of allowing the assessee to file the refund claim with its jurisdictional authority, recognized the issuance of the credit note as the relevant date for the limitation period, and accepted the service provider's letter as sufficient proof of payment. All issues were resolved in favor of the assessee and against the department.