2019 (2) TMI 863 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax wrongly paid - GTA for transportation of tendu leaves - denial on the ground of principles of unjust enrichment and also on the ground that no proof has been tendered by the appellant to show that the impugned services were with respect to agricultural produce. Unjust enrichment - Held that - The appellant was discharging the tax liability under reverse charge mechanism for all the said services. In view of this admitted fact, when it was the obligation of the service provider to discharge the service tax, but in the present case, the liability has been discharged by the recipient, the question of recovering the same from the service provider does not at all arise - It is obvious in the given circumstances that the incidence has been born by the appellant who otherwise is the service recipient - refund cannot be rejected on this ground. Denial on the ground that no proof has been tendered by the appellant to show that the impugned services were with respect to agricultural produce - Once there was no evidence on record to prove that the refund of service tax was with respect to such services as were incurred in relation to agricultural produce only, the adjudicating authority had no option but to reject the claim - refund rightly rejected on this ground. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of Service Tax on agricultural produces and related expenses. Rejection of refund claim by adjudicating authority. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellant, registered under work contract service and transport of goods by road service, filed a refund claim of Service Tax amounting to ?5,06,980 for the period April 2015 to September 2015, due to lack of knowledge that Service Tax was not payable on agricultural produces. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) except for the refund claimed on GTA for transportation of tendu leaves. The appellant contended that the refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment as they were discharging the liability under reverse charge mechanism. The appellant also argued that there was evidence for services related to agricultural produce, citing a CA certificate. The Department argued that the burden to prove non-passing of refund was on the appellant, which was not discharged. The Department also emphasized the lack of evidence for services being in relation to agricultural produce.

The Tribunal considered two main grounds for rejection: unjust enrichment and lack of evidence for services related to agricultural produce. Regarding unjust enrichment, the Tribunal noted that the appellant was paying tax under reverse charge mechanism, shifting the liability from the service provider to the recipient. Thus, the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the ground for rejection was deemed unsustainable. However, on the second ground, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove that the services claimed for refund were solely related to agricultural produce. Despite the CA certificate, there was no conclusive evidence linking the services to agricultural produce only. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had multiple opportunities to provide necessary documents but failed to do so. Consequently, the rejection of the claim on the second ground was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the rejection of the refund claim based on the lack of evidence for services being solely related to agricultural produce. The judgment highlights the importance of providing conclusive evidence to support refund claims, especially in cases involving tax liability on specific types of services.