2006 (6) TMI 31 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax Appellants filed self assessed ST returns and subsequently filed refund claim on ground that SCN issued to them is improper and no demand can be made against them Appellants had not deposited service tax on issuance of SCN, as they cannot obtain benefit of subsequent change in law and file refund claim

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of refund claim based on service tax deposited by appellant.
2. Interpretation of self-assessed ST 3B returns and compliance with show cause notice.
3. Applicability of retrospective amendments in Sections 68 & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Validity of levy of Service Tax on service receiver for GTO services.
5. Precedents regarding refund claims under retrospectively validated provisions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant filed a refund claim after depositing a sum towards service tax on goods transport operator (GTO) services. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner's Appeals. The appellant argued that the refund claim is admissible based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case.

Issue 2: The appellant's consultant contended that the service tax was deposited in response to a show cause notice. However, the Department argued that the amount was deposited based on self-assessed ST 3B returns and not against the show cause notice.

Issue 3: The Tribunal examined the retrospective amendments in Sections 68 & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, and their impact on the appellant's case. It was noted that the appellants paid the tax following these amendments, which affected the validity of their refund claim.

Issue 4: The Tribunal considered the levy of Service Tax on the service receiver for GTO services. Citing a judgment, it affirmed the constitutional validity and legality of the levy, emphasizing that the appellants had paid the service tax chargeable to them.

Issue 5: Referring to precedents, including a case involving Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the service tax paid by the appellants under the validated provisions could not be subject to a refund claim. The Deputy Commissioner's rejection of the refund claim was upheld based on this analysis.

In the final decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant had not deposited the amount as Service Tax on the issuance of any show cause notice. The judgment emphasized that the appellant could not benefit from subsequent legal changes to file a refund claim when the Service Tax liability was not disputed.