2023 (9) TMI 1064 - AT - Service Tax

Adjustment of excess paid service tax from the liability of another period - HELD THAT - The period of 2013-14 is not in dispute and hence never been examined by the department. Further, it is found that the contention of the appellant that he has paid excess payment in 2013-14 has been examined by the department and the Ld. Commissioner has held that there is nothing to co-relate the amounts paid with the liability of the appellants for the post negative list regime period, therefore, nothing could be deduced regarding payment of service tax liability w.e.f. 01.07.2012 in want of any corroborative documents. The ground taken by the appellant that the service tax liability for 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 was discharged in the year 2013-14 is not tenable as the service tax return for the financial year 2013-14 filed by the appellant has never been challenged nor the revise return was filed by the assessee. Further, if the appellant has discharged their service tax liability for the period 2012-13 in ST-3 returns of financial year 2013-14 but they have not given any intimation to the department regarding the payments of service tax liability in financial year 2013-14 for the period 2012-13. Further, if the contention of the appellant is accepted that they have paid excess service tax in the returns filed for the period 2013-14 then the only course left to him is to seek refund of the same. There is no provision of adjustment of excess payment of service tax of one period towards the liability of the other period. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the confirmation of demand in respect of services provided to Thapar University, Patiala for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 under the post-negative list regime, along with interest and penalty under Section 76 of the Act.

Facts and Rulings:
The appellants were engaged in providing services under various categories including Management, Maintenance or Repair services, Erection, Commissioning or Installation, Construction of Residential Complex, and Commercial or Industrial Construction services. An enquiry was conducted by the C.Ex. Commissionerate Chandigarh I, resulting in show cause notices for different periods. The demands were partially confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Subsequent appeals were decided through a common order. Further demands were made for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13, which were confirmed by the adjudication authority along with penalties under relevant sections.

The appellant appealed against the order dated 23.01.2019, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who ordered the demand to be deposited along with interest and imposed a penalty under Section 76 of the Act. The appellant challenged this order.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable in law and that the service tax liability for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 had been discharged in the year 2013-2014. They also mentioned filing an application under SVLDRS, 2019 for settlement of the dispute. The Department reiterated the findings of the impugned order and highlighted the mechanism for handling excess payments.

The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand in respect of Thapar University, and it was noted that the appellant had not challenged the Order-in-Appeal on merits. The period of 2013-14 was not in dispute, and the appellant's claim of excess payment was examined by the department. The Commissioner's findings were detailed regarding the appellant's payment details and liabilities for the specified periods.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the appellant, citing no infirmity in the decision.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2023)