2015 (12) TMI 1109 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim made by the recipient of services - service tax was paid wrongly by the service provider - Service Tax invoice issued by M/s. IDSPL is in the name of M/s. Fujitsu, New Delhi - Held that - M/s. IDSPL has paid the service tax on Business Transfer Fees which was admitted that Service Tax on the said transaction is not payable. The Business Transfer Fees alongwith service tax was paid by the respondent to M/s. IDSPL and the same was accounted for in the books of respondent. In view of this there is no dispute regarding payment of service tax and incidence of the same was borne by the respondent. As regard the invoice raised by the M/s. IDSPL in favour of respondent at Delhi address, it does not make any difference for processing the refund claim for the reason that Delhi office of the Respondent is their registered office and the same is not different entity, it is integral part and parcel of the one company of the respondent. The respondent having centralized registration at Pune, have correctly lodged their claim at Pune, particularly when the Service Tax by M/s. IDSPL was also paid in Pune only. - respondent s Pune office has right to claim at Pune only, therefore the claim is not without the Jurisdiction. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the same refund either claimed by the respondent s Delhi office or by another person. Since the service tax was erroneously paid the same has to be refunded and M/s. IDSPL has given the disclaimer, only right to claim the refund is with respondent only. - infirmity therein. Accordingly, the impugned order has to be sustained - Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction for filing the refund claim.
2. Entitlement of the respondent to claim the refund.
3. Impact of invoice address on refund eligibility.
4. Application of legal precedents and principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction for Filing the Refund Claim:
The primary issue revolved around whether the refund claim was correctly filed within the jurisdiction of Pune-I Commissionerate. The Revenue argued that neither the service provider (IDSPL) nor the service recipient (Fujitsu, New Delhi) fell under the jurisdiction of Pune-I Commissionerate. However, the Tribunal held that the respondent's Pune office, having centralized registration, was entitled to lodge the claim at Pune. It was emphasized that the service tax was paid in Pune, and the transaction was accounted for in the respondent's books. Furthermore, it was noted that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not restrict the jurisdiction for filing a refund claim, as long as it is not claimed by more than one person.

2. Entitlement of the Respondent to Claim the Refund:
The Tribunal examined whether the respondent was entitled to claim the refund. The facts established that IDSPL paid the service tax in Pune and raised the invoice to the respondent, who bore the service tax cost. The Tribunal noted that IDSPL had issued a disclaimer, indicating they did not claim the refund. Thus, the respondent, who paid the service tax and accounted for it in their books, was the rightful claimant. The Tribunal reiterated that the service tax paid on 'Business Transfer Fees' was not taxable, and therefore, the amount erroneously paid must be refunded to the respondent.

3. Impact of Invoice Address on Refund Eligibility:
The Revenue contended that the invoice was addressed to Fujitsu, New Delhi, which was not included in the respondent's centralized registration. The Tribunal, however, found that the Delhi office was the registered office of the respondent and an integral part of the same legal entity. It was held that the address on the invoice did not affect the refund eligibility, as the service tax was paid by the respondent and accounted for in their books. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund could not be denied merely because the invoice was addressed to a different location within the same entity.

4. Application of Legal Precedents and Principles:
The Tribunal referred to several legal precedents to support its decision. It cited cases like Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mangalore, and Raaj Khosla & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T, Delhi, which established that credit could be availed at a place where centralized registration exists, irrespective of the billing address. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Devasthan Vighag Vs. C.C.Ex. Jaipur-I, which held that refund claims could not be rejected due to jurisdictional differences. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly applied these legal principles and provided a detailed and reasoned order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the respondent's entitlement to the refund and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim was validly filed within the jurisdiction of Pune-I Commissionerate, the respondent was the rightful claimant, and the address on the invoice did not invalidate the refund claim. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough consideration of the facts, legal provisions, and relevant case law, ensuring that the erroneously paid service tax was rightfully refunded to the respondent.

← Previous Next →