Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 230 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - duty paying documents - non-submission of proper document admissible in terms of Notification No.40/2012-ST - HELD THAT - The benefit of Notification No.40/2012-ST can be availed in either way i.e. the service provider may not tax the amount or the service recipient being SEZ can claim refund - Mere technical discrepancy in the invoices cannot be the ground for denying substantive benefit of refund available to SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input tax incurred by the SEZ unit. Regarding re-conciliation of Service Tax payment with evidence of challans, I find that the same was produced before the lower authority and also before me and the same is satisfactory. The appellant herein is eligible for claiming refund of the Service Tax paid by the service provider which is in consonance with the law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on technical discrepancies in invoices and lack of proper documents. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a SEZ unit, filed a refund claim for Service Tax paid on services received. The claim was rejected by lower authorities citing discrepancies in invoices and lack of supporting documents. 2. The rejection was based on the invoices being addressed to the corporate office instead of the SEZ unit and the failure to submit required copies of invoices, bills, or challans as per Notification No.40/2012-ST. 3. The appellate tribunal observed that the benefit of the notification can be availed by either not taxing the amount or claiming a refund by the SEZ unit. 4. Technical discrepancies in invoices were deemed insufficient to deny the substantive benefit of refund to the SEZ unit, aligning with the government's policy of exempting or refunding input tax for SEZ units. 5. The tribunal noted that the SEZ unit had paid Service Tax to the service provider and was eligible for a refund, as the receipt of services and payment of tax were not in dispute. 6. Considering the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005, and the lack of adverse findings regarding the SEZ unit's eligibility for a refund, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief as per the law. 7. The judgment emphasized that the denial of the refund claim based on technical discrepancies was unsustainable, and the SEZ unit was entitled to claim the refund in accordance with the law. This detailed analysis highlights the key points of the judgment, addressing the issues of refund claim rejection based on technical discrepancies and lack of proper documents, and the tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and grant the refund to the SEZ unit.
|