9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1249 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim filed by legal heir of the proprietress - seeking refund tof amount paid by the proprietary concern after the expiry of proprietress, in respect of the amount due in terms of VCES introduced by the Chapter VI Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 vide Section 104 to 114 of the Finance Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The decision of SHABINA ABRAHAM AND OTHERS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS 2015 (7) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT was rendered taking note of the absence of machinery provisions for continuance of proceedings under Section 11A, etc after the expiry of the proprietor. Same is not the case as no such proceeding is there but refund claim has been made in respect of the amounts deposited in terms of the VCES, and as per Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2019 no refund of the amounts paid under the said scheme will be refunded under any circumstances. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim of service tax paid under the VCES after the death of the proprietor. 2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for refund claims. 3. Interpretation of Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013 regarding non-refundability of amounts paid under the VCES. 4. Relevance of the Supreme Court decision in Shabina Abraham's case to the present case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Claim of Service Tax Paid Under the VCES After the Death of the Proprietor: The appellant, a proprietorship concern, had declared a service tax liability under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) and made payments totaling Rs. 63,93,004/-. The proprietor passed away on 06.08.2014, and the legal heir sought a refund of the amount paid after her death, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shabina Abraham's case. 2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for Refund Claims: The refund claim was filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax matters by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 11B(1) stipulates that any person claiming a refund of duty and interest must file an application within one year from the relevant date, accompanied by necessary documentation to establish that the duty incidence has not been passed on to any other person. 3. Interpretation of Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013 Regarding Non-Refundability of Amounts Paid Under the VCES: Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013 explicitly states, "Any amount paid in pursuance of a declaration made under sub-section (1) of section 107 shall not be refundable under any circumstances." The tribunal emphasized that this provision precludes any refund of amounts paid under the VCES, irrespective of the circumstances. 4. Relevance of the Supreme Court Decision in Shabina Abraham's Case to the Present Case: The appellant's counsel argued that the refund should be granted based on the Supreme Court's decision in Shabina Abraham's case, where it was held that proceedings against a deceased individual could not continue in the absence of specific statutory provisions. However, the tribunal distinguished the present case from Shabina Abraham, noting that the latter dealt with the absence of machinery provisions for continuing proceedings after the death of an individual. In contrast, the present case involved a refund claim under the VCES, governed by Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013, which explicitly prohibits refunds. Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the refund claim based on the clear prohibition in Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013. The appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal concluded that the decision in Shabina Abraham did not apply to the present case due to the specific statutory bar on refunds under the VCES. Order pronounced in the open court.
|
