Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 600 - HC - Service TaxRefund claim - principles of unjust enrichment - applicability of Section 11B of CEA - HELD THAT - This court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. It is immediately apparent that the service tax department has taken two contrary positions while allowing the substantial sum of over ₹ 1 crore as refund, for the same work, i.e. as sub-contractors in respect of hospitals, no impediment or difficulty was faced. However, in respect of the construction of residential barracks, a para military organisation of the State, an entirely different approach for the subcontractor appears to have been taken. This is completely illogical and could have been the only ground on which the CESTAT could have set aside the refusal. This court is also of the opinion that the CESTAT s view that separate show cause notice is necessary under Section 11B is in consonance with the principle of fairness. If a general show cause notice is issued, invoking Section 11, there is no automatic assumption that the assessee would be faced ultimately with an order, under Section 11B. In this case, the assessee in fact applied for refund. It was all the more incumbent upon the authority to put the assesee to notice about the likely application of section 11B. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Application of the principle of unjust enrichment in a refund case. 3. Applicability of Section 11B in the context of service tax refund. 4. Necessity of a separate show cause notice under Section 11B. 5. Contrary positions taken by the service tax department in refund cases. Condonation of Delay: The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the reasons stated in the application, thereby disposing of the application. Principle of Unjust Enrichment: The Revenue raised an issue with the CESTAT order, arguing that the principle of unjust enrichment was not considered while setting aside the Commissioner's order refusing the refund. The appellant, a subcontractor, had mistakenly deposited certain amounts as service tax. Although a substantial refund was granted, it was refused on the grounds of being a subcontractor and the application of the principle of unjust enrichment under Section 11B. Applicability of Section 11B: The CESTAT observed that the Commissioner did not consider that no separate hearing is granted to the assessee for applying Section 11B. The court noted that the CESTAT's view on the necessity of a separate show cause notice under Section 11B aligns with the principle of fairness, especially when the assessee had applied for a refund. Separate Show Cause Notice: The court emphasized that if a general show cause notice is issued invoking Section 11, it does not automatically imply the application of Section 11B. In this case, the court found it necessary for the authority to notify the assessee about the potential application of Section 11B, especially when the assessee had sought a refund. Contrary Positions by Tax Department: The court highlighted the inconsistent approach of the service tax department in granting refunds, where different standards were applied for the same subcontractor in different projects. The court deemed this illogical and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed based on the court's view that the CESTAT's decision was justified in setting aside the refund refusal.
|