2023 (5) TMI 608 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Excess Tax deposited - rejection on the ground that the amount claimed as refund is not substantiated - rejection also on the ground of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - It is clear that the amount received during the refund period was against agreement number 172 which is mentioned on the backside of the work order number 100. It is also noted that the nature of work indicated in the Work order tallies with VAT-41. It is also clear that the appellants have not provided any other services during the refund period as is evident from the Form 16A/26AS which reflects only three entries for the quarter ending 31.12.2012 - As far as the authenticity of these ST-3 returns filed for the period 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 is concerned, the appellant has submitted that they had filed the returns electronically through ACES on 20.10.2013, which was rejected. A copy of the ST3 returns downloaded from the system was submitted along with the refund claim. It is seen that the figures of gross receipt, tax payable and tax deposited as shown in the ST3 returns tallies with the refund application, along with all other details. It is also noted that the difference in the registration number of the appellant has been explained satisfactorily by the learned counsel. Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT - Rajasthan Housing Board has also deducted the service tax payable by them by reverse charge mechanism in the bills raised by the appellant. Therefore, it is the appellant who has borne the incidence of tax and refund cannot be denied to any person who has borne the incidence of tax. Therefore, there is no unjust enrichment in this case. Impugned order is set aside - refund allowed - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the original authority.

Summary:
The appellant, a construction company, applied for a refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,88,463 paid on services provided by them, claiming that excess tax was deposited. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and the appeal against this rejection was also dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant contended that they had constructed buildings for the Rajasthan Housing Board under works contract services and had deposited excess tax. The appellant applied for a refund of Rs. 5,46,865 and provided necessary documents to support their claim. The appellant faced issues regarding non-filing of ST-3 return, which was explained as being electronically filed but rejected by the system. The appellant also clarified the difference in registration numbers. The revenue authority reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal observed that the case involved a refund of excess duty paid by the appellant while providing works contract services to the Rajasthan Housing Board. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the rejection of the refund claim citing lack of substantiation and the clause of unjust enrichment. However, the Tribunal examined the documents provided by the appellant, including work orders, Form 16A/26AS, VAT-41, and certificates, which supported the appellant's claim. It was noted that the appellant had not provided any other services during the refund period. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed borne the incidence of tax, as evidenced by the deductions made by the Rajasthan Housing Board, thus ruling out unjust enrichment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the refund with any consequential relief.

*(Pronounced in open Court on 12.05.2023)*