2020 (7) TMI 586 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground that the assessee was not registered with the Service Tax Department - shifting of premises - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund, on the ground which is not existence in law - the issue is answered in favour of the appellant holding that even though they were not registered prior to 13/05/2013, they are eligible for refund of the unutilized credit which was accumulated prior to registration. Shifting of premises - error in mentioning new address - HELD THAT - There was error in mentioning old address is an inadvertent error and the appellant assesse should not be deprived of their legitimate claim on this account. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim based on service tax registration status and address change.
2. Applicability of legal precedent on registration requirement for claiming Cenvat Credit.
3. Error in mentioning old address on invoices affecting refund claim eligibility.

Analysis:
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved the rejection of a refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority on two grounds. Firstly, the Authority rejected the claim because the appellant was not registered with the Service Tax Department during the period when services were rendered. Secondly, the Authority noted that even after the appellant shifted premises, invoices continued to mention the old address, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka regarding the registration requirement for claiming Cenvat Credit. The High Court ruled that the absence of a statutory provision mandating registration as a condition precedent for claiming credit meant the authorities erred in rejecting the claim solely on registration grounds. The Tribunal applied this ruling to the present case, holding that the appellant was eligible for refund despite not being registered before a certain date.

In response to the issue of mentioning the old address on invoices, the appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that it was an inadvertent error and should not disqualify the appellant from their legitimate claim. The Tribunal, in agreement with the Chartered Accountant's submission, held that the error in mentioning the old address was unintentional and should not be a basis for denying the refund claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, granting them consequential benefits. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal precedents and the correct interpretation of statutory provisions in determining the eligibility for refund claims, ensuring fair treatment for taxpayers in similar situations.