2019 (2) TMI 1405 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax paid - Jurisdiction - rejection on the ground that that the appellant is registered as service provider in Gurugram, therefore, the refund claim is required to be filed there. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim refund from the Panchkula office - Held that - The appellant has filed refund claimed either of the Commissionerates of Gurugram and Panchkula. The appellant is registered with the Service Tax department, Gurugram. However, as the Housing Board Haryana paid service tax on the rendered by the appellant to the Panchkula Commissionerate, then the appellant is having jurisdiction to file refund with the Panchkula Commissionerate. Therefore, they have rightly filed refund claim before the Panchkula Commissionerate. Further, the appellant has produced certificate from the Housing Board Haryana certifying that the appellant can file refund of service tax paid by Housing Board Haryana and the service tax borne by the appellant. In that circumstance, the appellant is entitled to file refund claim before the Panchkula Commissionerate. The concerned officer of Panchkula Commissionerate is directed to sanction the refund claim to the appellant within 30 days of receipt of this order - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction for filing refund claim, rejection of refund claim by different Commissionerates, entitlement to refund claim.

Analysis:

The appellant, a contractor providing construction services to Housing Board Haryana (HBH), filed a refund claim which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's refund claim was initially rejected by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurugram, stating that the refund should be claimed from the Service Tax Panchkula Commissionerate since the service tax was paid by HBH there. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Panchkula, also rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the appellant is registered as a service provider in Gurugram, and thus, the claim should be filed there.

The appellant contended that since HBH deducted service tax from their bills and bore the tax themselves, they were entitled to the refund claim. The appellant had filed the claim under the jurisdiction of Panchkula, and it was argued that the rejection by either Commissionerate was unjustified. The appellant also presented a certificate from HBH supporting their claim for a refund.

After considering the submissions, the tribunal found that the appellant had the right to file the refund claim with the Panchkula Commissionerate since HBH had paid the service tax there. The tribunal acknowledged the certificate provided by HBH, confirming the appellant's entitlement to claim the refund. Consequently, the tribunal directed the concerned officer of the Panchkula Commissionerate to sanction the refund claim to the appellant within 30 days of the order.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to file the refund claim before the Panchkula Commissionerate based on the jurisdiction where the service tax was paid, and the supporting certificate from HBH.