9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 588 - AT - Service TaxSEZ Unit - refund of service tax paid - renting of immovable property services - period from October 2008 to October 2011 - rejection on the ground of non-availability of approved list of services during the period of receiving the input services itself. Held that - The appellant being SEZ is entitled to refund of Service Tax paid on input services used for authorized operations - Further, as per Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, the only requirement is that the appellant is required to file the list of approved services which have been used by them for authorized operations - Further, in this case, it is found that the appellant has subsequently obtained the approval from the Unit Approval Committee of the SEZ and the said certificate is placed on record but the Commissioner (A) has held that the said approval was obtained from the competent authority on 25.10.2011 and therefore, after the approval, he has allowed the refund and prior to that he has rejected the same. Further, in view of the settled legal position by various decisions relied upon by the appellant, condition of approval from UAC is not a mandatory requirement as per SEZ Act vide Section 51 of the SEZ Act which has an overriding effect over the provisions of any other law. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund of Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' | Rejection of Service Tax refund on renting of immovable property | Interpretation of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 | Legal sustainability of rejection based on approval from Unit Approval Committee | Applicability of judicial precedents on refund claims. Refund of Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service': The appeal challenged the Commissioner (A)'s rejection of a refund claim of ?911 for Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service'. The appellant did not press for this small amount. However, the rejection was contested on the grounds of contrary to judicial precedent and lack of clarity in the refund Notification regarding the classification of Service Tax. The Tribunal noted the appellant's decision not to press for this amount and did not delve further into this issue. Rejection of Service Tax refund on renting of immovable property: The main issue revolved around the rejection of the Service Tax refund on the renting of immovable property. The Commissioner (A) allowed the refund for the period from 25.10.2011 to October 2013 but rejected it for the period from October 2008 to 24.10.2011. The rejection was based on the appellant obtaining approval from the Unit Approval Committee on 25.10.2011, after part of the services were received. The appellant argued that this condition was not legally sustainable as it was not part of the relevant Notification or SEZ Act/Rules. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing various decisions, and held that the approval from the Unit Approval Committee was a procedural requirement, not a mandatory condition. The rejection of the Service Tax refund on renting of immovable property was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed for a specific amount. Interpretation of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013: The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, which required the filing of a list of approved services used for authorized operations to claim a refund. It was established that the appellant had obtained approval from the Unit Approval Committee, although the timing of approval was a point of contention. The Tribunal clarified that the approval requirement was procedural and not mandatory as per the SEZ Act, which overrides other laws. The Tribunal's interpretation aligned with the appellant's argument, emphasizing the procedural nature of the approval process. Legal sustainability of rejection based on approval from Unit Approval Committee: The rejection of the Service Tax refund by the Commissioner (A) based on the approval from the Unit Approval Committee was challenged for lacking legal sustainability. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's position, emphasizing that the approval was not a mandatory condition under the SEZ Act and was merely a procedural requirement. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the overriding effect of the SEZ Act on other laws, supporting the appellant's claim for the refund. Applicability of judicial precedents on refund claims: The appellant relied on judicial precedents, including cases like Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Automotive Design & Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., to support their argument against the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal found the decisions cited by the appellant to be applicable in the present case and supported the appellant's position. The reliance on judicial precedents strengthened the appellant's case and contributed to the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal partially. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the rejection of the Service Tax refund on renting of immovable property for a specific period. The decision emphasized the procedural nature of obtaining approval from the Unit Approval Committee and the overriding effect of the SEZ Act on such requirements. The Tribunal's analysis aligned with the appellant's arguments and judicial precedents, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant in the case.
|
