2022 (10) TMI 804 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax on input services used for export of services without payment of service tax - rejection on the ground of improper address in the invoice, non-mention of address in the invoice, etc. - whether just because of procedural error in the invoices for input services with regard to the address of the Appellant, can the substantive benefit of refund be denied to the Appellant? - HELD THAT - It is found from the records that the error in address can at best be termed to be a clerical error for which the Appellant has also produced certificate from the Service provider clarifying the error in the floor number. Hence, when the receipt of services is not in dispute, the benefit of refund should not be denied to the Appellant as per the settled jurisprudence in this regard. Reliance placed in the judgment of SAMBHAJI VERSUS GANGABAI 2008 (11) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT wherein it has been held that A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. The department is directed to process the refund claim within 8 weeks from the submission of the order copy as per the process of law - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax on input services used for export of services without payment of service tax - Rejection based on procedural errors in the invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of the refund of service tax on input services used for exporting services without paying service tax for a specific period. The rejection was primarily due to errors in the invoices, such as an improper address and non-mention of address. The adjudicating authority and the appellate authority upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeal.

The key issue to be determined in this case was whether a procedural error in the invoices, specifically related to the appellant's address, could justify denying the substantive benefit of a refund to the appellant. Upon reviewing the records, it was noted that the address error was merely a clerical mistake, supported by a certificate from the service provider clarifying the floor number error. Since the receipt of services was undisputed, denying the refund based on a procedural error was deemed unjust, following established jurisprudence.

Reference was made to the judgment of Sambhaji Versus Gangabai 2009 (240) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.), emphasizing the importance of ensuring that procedural laws do not override substantive rights and justice. The judgment highlighted that procedural laws should serve justice and not impede it, with judges having the authority to act in the interest of justice where necessary. It underscored that procedural laws should be interpreted in a manner that aids justice and prevents injustice.

In line with the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment, the appeal was allowed, and both the Order-in-Appeal and the Order-in-Original were set aside. The department was directed to process the refund claim within eight weeks from the submission of the order copy, adhering to the due process of law. The appeal was granted with any consequential benefits that may arise, ensuring that justice was served in this matter.

The judgment was pronounced in open court on 27.09.2022, providing a clear resolution to the dispute regarding the refund of service tax on input services used for exporting services without payment of service tax.