9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 464 - HC - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - Direction to respondent to accept the refund application filed by the petitioner in Form R and grant the refund along with interest - relevant date and time limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - A refund of service tax paid in excess if any, has to be made within a period of one year from the relevant date as specified under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 as it would apply to a refund of Central Excise duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. ITC Ltd., 1993 (7) TMI 363 - SUPREME COURT which was relied by Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.3E Infotech, 11 B/1, 2nd Floor, New Street, Parvathipuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari 2018 (7) TMI 276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is primarily an authority for unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994. A mandamus can be issued only when there is a corresponding statutory duty on the respondent to consider the petitioner s refund claim beyond the period of limitation. Since, refund claims have to be filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Scheme of the Finance Act, 1994, incorporating Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994, no case is made out for issuance of a mandamus. In this petition, refund claim has been filed long after expiry the period of limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax under Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, there is no merits in the present writ petition. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund application for service tax paid during the Financial Year 2016-17. 2. Applicability of Section 142(3) of the GST Act, 2017. 3. Limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Doctrine of unjust enrichment. 5. Issuance of Mandamus for refund claim beyond the period of limitation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Application for Service Tax Paid During the Financial Year 2016-17: The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the respondent to accept their refund application filed in Form R dated 11.02.2019 and grant the refund along with interest. The refund claim pertains to service tax allegedly paid during the Financial Year 2016-17 under the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Applicability of Section 142(3) of the GST Act, 2017: The petitioner's counsel referred to Section 142(3) of the GST Act, 2017, which states that every claim for refund filed before, on, or after the appointed day, for any amount of CENVAT credit, duty, tax, interest, or any other amount paid under the existing law, shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to the claimant shall be paid in cash. 3. Limitation Period Under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 incorporates provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including Section 11B, which mandates that a refund claim must be made within one year from the "relevant date." The relevant date is defined in various contexts, including the date of payment of duty in cases not specifically covered by other provisions. 4. Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment: The petitioner's counsel cited the decision of the Division Bench in CMA.No.601 of 2018, which referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. ITC Ltd., stating that a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation if the service tax was paid by mistake. However, this view was diluted by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasized that refund claims must comply with the provisions of Section 11B and the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 5. Issuance of Mandamus for Refund Claim Beyond the Period of Limitation: The court held that a mandamus could only be issued if there was a corresponding statutory duty on the respondent to consider the petitioner's refund claim beyond the period of limitation. Since the refund claim was filed long after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no case was made out for the issuance of a mandamus. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed as the refund claim was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994, incorporating Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court found no merit in the petition and ruled that no mandamus could be issued to direct the respondent to consider the refund claim beyond the statutory limitation period.
|
