2020 (2) TMI 758 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - Jurisdiction - refund claim stands filed by the branch office whereas the service tax has been paid by their head office - Works Contract service provided to various departments of the Government of Uttar Pradeshterritorial Jurisdiction - Notification No.06/2016-ST dated 01.03.2015 effective from 01.04.2015, Sl. No. (a), (c) (f) of the entry 12 of the Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 (Mega Exemption) - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the Service Tax matters vide Section 83 of Finance Act - HELD THAT - During examination of the refund claims, it was noticed that (i) the appellants did not provide any documents to correlate their refund claims with the conditions specified in Section 102 of the Act, (ii) they failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that they had not passed on the incidence of Service Tax and (iii) the payments for which refund claims were filed, had been deposited through challans under Service Tax Code/Registration Number of their Head Office at Lucknow. Accordingly, Show Cause Notices were issued to them for rejecting their refund claims. The Original Adjudicating Authority as also Appellate Authority rejected the refund claims on the ground that the same stands filed by the branch office whereas the service tax has been paid by their head office. As such the Original Adjudicating Authority does not have any jurisdiction to pass said refund claims. Matter remanded for taking appropriate action - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Original Adjudicating Authority over refund claims filed by branch office when service tax paid by head office.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of jurisdiction concerning refund claims filed by a branch office when the service tax had been paid by the head office. The appellants had paid service tax on 'Works Contract service' provided to various government departments during a specific period. The exemption on these services was initially omitted but later restored through a notification. Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, provided for the non-levy of service tax during a specific period for services provided to the government. The appellants applied for refunds under this section but faced rejection due to lack of supporting documents and failure to demonstrate non-passing of the tax burden. The refund claims were further rejected as they were filed by the branch office, while the service tax was paid by the head office. Both the Original Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the claims citing jurisdictional issues.

The Tribunal noted a similar issue had been considered in the appellant's own case previously, where the impugned orders were set aside, and matters were remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority. It was observed that if the Original Adjudicating Authority believed it lacked jurisdiction over the refund claims, the claims should be transferred to the appropriate authority for further action. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for appropriate action based on the earlier order of the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the importance of jurisdictional clarity in dealing with refund claims and the need for proper transfer of cases to the relevant authority for adjudication.