2024 (11) TMI 1081 - HC - Service Tax

Rejection of refund of amount pre-deposited u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - petitioner had earlier suffered an adverse order whereby the service tax demand was confirmed on the reimbursable expenses which was corrected/allowed by CESTAT - HELD THAT - As per impugned order passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner clearly indicates that the petitioner has not produced any documents to substantiate the tax that was paid on the reimbursable expenses. The claim has not been substantiated by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, no merits in challenge the impugned order. However, one opportunity can be given to the petitioner to produce the documents before the respondents to substantiate that petitioner was indeed entitled for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner. The impugned order is quashed and the case is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order. It is made clear that, it is the last opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim. Since the impugned order was passed in the year 2019, the respondent shall pass order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to cooperate with the respondent.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection for a specific amount.
2. Lack of evidence to substantiate tax payment on reimbursable expenses.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged Impugned Order-in-Original No.39/2019(R) dated 03.04.2019, where the second respondent partly allowed a refund but rejected a sum of Rs. 95,06,778. The rejection was based on the petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence to authenticate the payment made to the exchequer. The petitioner had earlier faced an adverse order where a service tax demand was confirmed, penalty imposed, and interest charged. Despite subsequent success before the CESTAT, refund claims for the tax paid during that period were filed, leading to the current dispute over the rejected refund amount.

2. The court noted that the petitioner failed to produce essential documents like challans or ST-3 returns to prove the payment of service tax on reimbursable expenses. The lack of concrete evidence to support the payment made to the exchequer was a crucial factor in the rejection of the refund claim. The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to challenge the impugned order but emphasized the necessity of producing the required documents to substantiate the claim. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order, remanding the case back to the respondent for a fresh decision. The petitioner was given a final opportunity to provide the necessary documentation within a specified timeframe, with a directive for expeditious handling of the matter.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, highlighting the key legal aspects and the court's decision regarding the refund claim rejection and the lack of evidence to support the tax payment on reimbursable expenses.