9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 984 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - claim is hit by limitation when filed after the introduction of GST, or not - overriding effect of section 142(8)(b) of CGST Act, 2017 - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in the case of Jai Mateshwaari Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (3) TMI 49 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that in the facts of the present case, no limitation is applicable as provided under Section 11B (one year from the relevant date), due to overriding effect of CGST Act. Accordingly, I find that the appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) r/w 142(8) (b) of the CGST Act r/w the erstwhile provisions of Central Excise Act and the Cenvat Credit Rules. The rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is not justified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Eligibility for service tax refund under reverse charge mechanism. 2. Applicability of limitation period for filing refund claim post-GST introduction. 3. Cess eligibility for refund. 4. Interpretation of Section 142(3) and 142(8)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. 5. Justification for rejecting refund claim based on limitation. Eligibility for Service Tax Refund: The appellant filed a refund claim for service tax paid under the categories of renting of immovable property service, ocean freight charges, and scientific and technical services. The original authority rejected the claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) found the appellant eligible for a refund. However, the issue of timeliness was remanded for verification. Applicability of Limitation Period: The adjudicating authority, in a denovo adjudication, held the refund claim as time-barred since the service tax was paid before the introduction of GST and the claim was filed post-GST. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled that the cess paid was not refundable, limiting the refund claim to a specific amount in the subsequent litigation. Cess Eligibility for Refund: The appellant argued that the refund claim did not include the cess paid by them and relied on precedents to support their case. The Tribunal analyzed the issue of limitation post-GST introduction in light of Section 142(3) and 142(8)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Interpretation of Section 142(3) and 142(8)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017: The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was held that the provisions of Section 142(3) and 142(8)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 override the limitation period for refund claims post-GST introduction. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the adjudicating authority to disburse the refund amount along with interest within a specified timeframe. Justification for Rejecting Refund Claim: The Tribunal, following the precedent set in earlier cases, concluded that the rejection of the refund claim based on limitation was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs deemed necessary. This detailed analysis covers the issues of eligibility for service tax refund, the application of the limitation period post-GST introduction, the cess eligibility for refund, the interpretation of relevant sections of the CGST Act, and the justification for rejecting the refund claim.
|
