2019 (8) TMI 548 - AT - Service Tax

Adjustment of the excess paid towards the tax liability of subsequent months - the claim of the appellant for adjustment rejected only on the ground that the appellant s claim for adjudication was not in accordance with Rule 6 (4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT - I do not find that such a request for adjustment should be made only in the immediately following calendar of month/quarter and hence, I agree with the contentions of the Learned Consultant. If a hypothetical situation is considered where such excess tax paid is more than the tax liability of the succeeding month/quarter, the only and most natural consequence is that the balance remaining would have to be invariably carried forward, to be adjusted in the subsequent succeeding month/s. Thus, the interpretation drawn by the adjudicating authority which is approved by the Commissioner, the First Appellate Authority cannot sustain - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Adjustment of excess Service Tax paid, interpretation of Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Analysis:

Adjustment of Excess Service Tax Paid:
The appellant, registered under renting of immovable property services, remitted Service Tax from October 2007 to March 2009. Due to tenant disputes, the appellant did not remit tax from April 2009 onwards. Under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) in 2013, the appellant declared all rental incomes and paid the entire Service Tax amount of ?31,53,940 from October 2007 to December 2012. Realizing the double payment for October 2007 to March 2009, the appellant sought adjustment for the period from January 2014 to September 2015. The Revenue did not dispute these facts.

Interpretation of Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The Revenue rejected the adjustment claim citing non-compliance with Rule 6(4A), which allows excess payment adjustment against the succeeding month or quarter's tax liability. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's interpretation, stating that the rule does not specify that adjustment must occur in the immediately following month/quarter. If excess tax paid exceeds the subsequent tax liability, the balance should carry forward for adjustment in subsequent months. Blocking an assessee from adjusting or refunding excess amounts leaves them without remedies. The Tribunal held that the appellant's appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, and granting consequential benefits as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the need for a practical interpretation of tax adjustment rules to ensure fairness and uphold the rights of the assessee.