2022 (5) TMI 652 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - refund claimed within a period of twelve months from 21.09.2017 being the date of filing of revised return, or not - HELD THAT - There is no controversy regarding the quantum of amount refundable. Further, there is no allegation nor any finding by the Court below with regard to unjust enrichment. Further, in the facts and circumstances, it is found that there is no scope to transfer any service tax liability as the credit has been taken after the appointed day and also filing of Form TRAN-1. Further it is held that no time limit is prescribed under the transition provision of Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, for claim and grant of refund. The appellant is entitled to refund of the said amount of Rs. 1,18,237/-. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to disburse the refund of the said amount within a period of (60) sixty days from the date of receipt of this order alongwith interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of additional cenvat credit under GST regime.
2. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar.
3. Appeal against rejection of refund claim by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a scheduled commercial bank, filed a refund claim for additional cenvat credit of Rs.1,18,237/- arising due to the late receipt of some invoices of input service after filing a revised return in Form ST-3 for the period ended 30.06.2017. The claim was made under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, as the credit was taken after the appointed day and filing of Form TRAN-1 for transfer of credit to the GST regime. The appellant sought refund as per the provisions of the Act.

2. The refund claim was rejected on the ground of being time-barred, as it was filed on 15.11.2018, more than twelve months after the filing of the revised return on 21.09.2017. The rejection also cited the lack of evidence to prove that the tax incidence had not been passed on to any other person. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal challenging the time bar for claiming the refund.

3. The appellant contended that Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act does not prescribe any time limit for claiming a refund arising after the appointed day. The appellant argued that the only requirement under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is the satisfaction of unjust enrichment. It was emphasized that as the credit was rightfully taken post the appointed day, there was no scope for passing on any liability under service tax provisions at the relevant time. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found no controversy regarding the refund amount, absence of unjust enrichment allegations, and no limitation prescribed for claiming the refund under the transition provision of Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Adjudicating Authority to disburse the refund of Rs. 1,18,237/- within sixty days from the date of the order along with interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. The decision was based on the lack of time limit for claiming the refund under the relevant provisions, and the rightful entitlement of the appellant to the refund amount.