2024 (2) TMI 80 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection mainly on the ground that while branches filed refund claim the service tax was paid by their head office - HELD THAT - Taking note of the letter of the revenue whereby revenue has indicated that similar appeal filed by the revenue has been dismissed by this Tribunal in COMMISSIONER, CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW VERSUS M/S U.P. PROJECTS CORPORATION LTD. 2019 (9) TMI 1395 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD and the fact that this order has been accepted by the revenue authorities, we do not find any merits in these three appeals. All three appeals are dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow, based on various grounds including payment of service tax by the head office, mention of challans in ST-3 returns, unjust enrichment, and exemption of service tax on work contracts.

Issue 1 - Payment of Service Tax by Head Office:
The appellants argued that the head office had paid the service tax on behalf of individual units for administrative convenience, and the filing of refund claims by branches instead of the head office should not be a reason for denial of refunds. They highlighted that all appellants are part of a single corporate entity and have obtained centralized registration at Lucknow. The Commissioner (Appeals) found this to be a minor technical infraction that should not prevent the sanction of refund claims.

Issue 2 - Challans not mentioned in ST-3 returns:
The appellants clarified that the total tax liability was discharged by the head office, and the details of challans were mentioned in the ST-3 returns of the head office. They argued that there was no requirement for submission of original contracts (GOs) and provided evidence to support their claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with the submissions and set aside the orders rejecting the refund claims.

Issue 3 - Unjust Enrichment:
Regarding unjust enrichment, the appellants contended that the Service Tax liability was discharged from government-sanctioned funds, and no invoices/bills were issued. They claimed that they had borne the incidence of Service Tax and had not passed it on. The balance sheet supported their claim, showing the claimed amount of Service Tax as receivables. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with this argument and allowed the appeals, stating that the refund claims were not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.

Separate Judgment:
A separate judgment highlighted that similar appeals filed by the revenue had been dismissed by the Tribunal previously, and the revenue authorities had accepted the decision. Based on this, the Tribunal found no merits in the three appeals filed by the revenue and dismissed them accordingly.

This comprehensive summary covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the arguments presented by the parties, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), and the final decision of the Tribunal.