2019 (2) TMI 590 - AT - Service Tax

SEZ - Refund of service tax - N/N. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 - rejection on the ground that was rejected only on the ground that the address of the service recipient is not mentioned in the invoice - Held that - The appellant has produced before me invoices subsequently issued by the service provider wherein the address of the service recipient is mentioned. Moreover, as per the proviso to Rule 4A itself provides that in the case of financial institutions , the address of the service recipient is not required but this proviso was not considered by both the authorities. Therefore, in view of the specific provision in Rule 4A of STR, 1994, the rejection of refund on the ground of not mentioning the address of the service recipient is not sustainable in law. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar - Held that - No doubt, the Notification gives the discretionary power to the Original Authority to condone the delay provided there is justification for the delay. The Original Authority have considered the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation but declined to condone the delay on the ground that no sufficient reason was given in the application seeking condonation except saying that due to unavoidable reason, the delay occurred. Since, there was no proper justification for the delay, therefore rejection of the refund of ₹ 97,831/- is perfectly justified. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim of Service Tax amounting to ?1,57,622/- on the ground of missing address of service recipient in the invoice.
2. Rejection of refund claim of Service Tax amounting to ?97,831/- due to delay in filing the claim application within the stipulated time.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a SEZ unit, filed a refund claim of Service Tax under Notification No. 12/2013-ST for the period from July 2014 to September 2014. The claim included amounts paid to service providers like The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim of ?1,57,622/- citing the absence of the service recipient's address in the invoice. The appellant argued that the address was not mandatory for financial institutions as per Rule 4A of STR, 1994. The appellate tribunal agreed, noting that subsequent invoices rectified this issue. The rejection based on the missing address was deemed unsustainable in law.

2. The second issue pertained to the rejection of a refund claim of ?97,831/- due to a delay in filing the claim application within the stipulated time frame. The appellant contended that the delay was justifiable and cited the discretionary power of the Assistant Commissioner to condone delays under Notification No. 12/2013-ST. However, the Original Authority found the reason for the delay insufficient and declined to condone it. The tribunal upheld this decision, stating that without proper justification, the rejection of the refund claim due to delay was justified. Consequently, the tribunal partially allowed the refund, granting ?1,57,622/- and rejecting ?97,831/-.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal overturned the lower authorities' decisions regarding the missing address in the invoice and upheld the rejection based on the delay in filing the claim application. The judgment highlights the importance of complying with procedural requirements and providing adequate justification for delays in refund claims under relevant notifications and regulations.