2022 (4) TMI 1208 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim of the Service Tax paid - input services used by the appellant in its authorized operations in SEZ units - denial of refund for the lack of documents - HELD THAT - The Revenue has not denied the fact that the services in question were used by the SEZ unit for its authorized operations. Hence the denial of refund for want of documents is not sustainable. The Learned Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT in the case of MAST GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE 2018 (9) TMI 258 - CESTAT BANGALORE has considered the case of a similarly placed taxpayer and held that this is only a procedural and is not a mandatory condition as held by the Commissioner(Appeals). There are no reasons or justification to sustain the impugned order as well as the denial of refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the denial of refund claim of the Service Tax paid on input services used by the appellant in its authorized operations in SEZ units is correct?

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of a refund claim for Service Tax paid on input services used in SEZ units for authorized operations. The appellant argued that the services availed, including Rent-a-Cab Service, Business Support Service, Accommodation Service, and Travel Agent Service, are essential for authorized operations as per the Uniform List of Services. The appellant relied on various CESTAT decisions to support their claim that input services used for SEZ operations should be allowed, even if not explicitly listed. The Revenue, represented by the Departmental Representative, supported the lower authorities' findings.

The Member (Judicial) considered the arguments and held that the Revenue did not dispute the usage of services for SEZ operations. Therefore, denying the refund due to lack of documents was deemed unsustainable. Referring to the case of M/s. Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., the Member noted that rejecting refund claims on grounds beyond the show-cause notices was impermissible. The Member emphasized that the SEZ Act's provisions should override other laws, making the approval from the UAC of SEZ a procedural, not mandatory, requirement. Consistent views from co-ordinate Benches supported the appellant's stance.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. The judgment highlights the importance of considering SEZ-specific regulations and the necessity of input services for authorized operations, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.