2019 (2) TMI 1178 - AT - Service Tax

SEZ unit - Refund of service tax - rejection on the ground that once the services are exempted by Notification No.9/2009 as amended by Notification No.15/2009-ST whereby the exemption claimed by developer or units of SEZ shall be provided by way of refund except for services consumed wholly within the SEZ - Held that - Identical issue decided in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd. Vs CST Ahmedabad 2013 (7) TMI 703 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that any service tax paid/ remitted by a service provider is liable to be refunded to the provider who has remitted service tax in relation to taxable services provided to the unit to carry on authorized operations in a SEZ - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under notification No.9/2009 as amended.

Analysis:
The appellant, a SEZ unit, sought refund of service tax amounts rejected by lower authorities due to services wholly consumed within the SEZ under notification No.9/2009-ST. The appellant relied on various Tribunal decisions supporting their entitlement to refund under the said notification despite amendments. The respondent argued that the exemption claimed for services consumed wholly within the SEZ was barred by the notification. The Tribunal found the issue covered by precedent, citing the Intas Pharma Ltd. case where it was held that notifications 9/2009 and 15/2009 do not disentitle immunity to service tax provided by the Act. The notifications facilitate the process of claiming refunds for SEZ units. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable and allowed the appeals with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of notifications regarding service tax refunds in SEZs. It emphasizes that notifications 9/2009 and 15/2009 do not negate the immunity to service tax under the Act but provide a framework for claiming refunds. The Tribunal's analysis in the Intas Pharma Ltd. case highlights the facilitative nature of the notifications in enabling SEZ units to claim refunds for services consumed within the SEZ. The decision reaffirms the right of SEZ units to seek refunds under notification No.9/2009 despite specific provisions barring refunds for services wholly consumed within the SEZ. The judgment underscores the importance of harmoniously construing statutory provisions and notifications to uphold the intended benefits for SEZ units while adhering to procedural requirements.

Overall, the judgment sets a precedent for SEZ units seeking service tax refunds and provides clarity on the applicability of notifications in such cases. It reinforces the principle that notifications should be interpreted in a manner that upholds the underlying statutory provisions and ensures the intended benefits are not eclipsed by procedural requirements. The decision highlights the significance of precedent and consistent application of legal principles in resolving disputes related to service tax refunds in SEZs.