Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (5) TMI 600 - HC - Service Tax


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates