2019 (8) TMI 1299 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - Jurisdiction - whether the refund claims filed by the appellant with the Assistant Commissioner was wrongly filed or the same were required to be filed with the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over NBCC? - HELD THAT - The appellant having filed the refund claims with their jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities under a bona-fide belief that the claims have to be dealt with by him, and if the concerned office was not having jurisdiction, the reasonable course of action on the part of the officer was to transfer the claim to the relevant office having jurisdiction to decide the same, under intimation to the assessee. Examining from another angle also, if the appellant is now required to file a fresh refund claim, the same would not be hit by the bar of limitation, inasmuch as, the period during which the same were pending before wrong forum and were under litigation has to be excluded. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax is directed to transfer the appellant s application for refund to the proper concerned office having jurisdiction to deal with the same - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction for filing refund claims under Service Tax law.

Analysis:
The appellant was providing Works Contract Services to various Government Organizations, including M/s NBCC, where 50% of the Service Tax was required to be paid by the Service Provider and the remaining 50% by the recipient on Reverse Charge Basis. Disputes arose regarding the taxability of these services during a certain period. While the appellant did not discharge its Service Tax liability, M/s NBCC paid their share of the tax and recovered it from the appellant. Subsequently, when it was clarified that no Service Tax was required to be paid, M/s NBCC advised the appellant to claim a refund of the tax paid. The appellant filed refund claims with their jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities, which were rejected on the grounds of jurisdiction.

The rejection was based on the argument that since the tax was paid in the jurisdiction of M/s NBCC, the refund claims filed with the Assistant Commissioner were outside his jurisdiction. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that refund claims must be filed with the jurisdictional Service Tax office where the tax liability was discharged. The main issue was whether the refund claims were wrongly filed with the Assistant Commissioner or should have been filed with the jurisdictional officer of M/s NBCC. The appellant argued that even if the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction, the claims should have been transferred to the relevant office instead of being rejected.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the claims were filed in good faith with the jurisdictional authorities, and if the concerned office lacked jurisdiction, the claims should have been transferred to the appropriate office. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Commissioner to transfer the appellant's refund application to the proper office with jurisdiction. It was clarified that the decision was based solely on the issue of jurisdiction, without delving into other aspects like limitation or unjust enrichment. The date of filing the refund claims was considered to be the original filing date with the Assistant Commissioner. The impugned orders were set aside with instructions for the Lower Authorities to take the necessary action as directed.