9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has directed to pay the tax again as their inhouse formalities does not allow adjustment of tax wrongly paid towards one Commissionerate to another. The appellant has again paid service tax mentioning the service tax registration of Ahmedabad Commissionerate on 26.09.2016. It is clear that the department has collected service tax twice from the appellant. This is not permissible under law. The rejection of refund on the ground of limitation cannot be justified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 40554 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER No. 42457 / 2021 - Dated:- 10-12-2021 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri G. Derrick Sam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Rajaraman, Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registration number available in the ACES. Appellant replied vide their letter dated 12.09.2016 stating that during the filing of half yearly return for the Centralized STC, there was an error in mentioning the registration number in the challan and requested that amount paid as per the challan to be adjusted to the payment that has to be made in regard to registration number of Ahmedabad Commissionerate. 5. On 23.09.2016, the department replied to the appellant stating that request cannot be accepted. The appellants were directed to make payment of service tax along with applicable interest and penalty again and furnish the proof of payment to the Ahmedabad Commissionerate. 6. The appellant then filed an application on 06.03.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that the tax has been paid twice by the appellant on the consideration reflected in the returns. The refund claim is rejected stating that as the appellant has initially paid the service tax with the registration number of Tirupur Range on 05.01.2015, refund claim dated 06.03.2017 is time-barred. He submitted that the service tax having been paid by mistake, the department cannot retain the excess amount with them. 9. Ld. Counsel relied upon the decisions of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of 3E Infotech - 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 410 (Mad.) and in the case of Vinarom Ltd. in W.P. No.17012 of 2001 dated 03.08.2010. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Venkatraman Guhaprasad Vs CGST CE Chennai 2020 (42) G.S.T.L. 124 (Tri.-Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DERS SHIPPING AGENCIES, situated at no.2, 1st floor, Indira na, 1st street, oddakadu tirupur, tamil nadu 641603 and failing in the jurisdiction of Coimbatore. Therefore, you are further requested to make the payment of service tax of ₹ 307838/- along the applicable interest and penalty and intimate the office of undersigned with the submission of the proof of payment at the earliest. The department has directed to pay the tax again as their inhouse formalities does not allow adjustment of tax wrongly paid towards one Commissionerate to another. The appellant has again paid service tax mentioning the service tax registration of Ahmedabad Commissionerate on 26.09.2016. It is clear that the department has collected service tax t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section. (b) The claim for return of money must be considered by the authorities. 14. In the case of Vinarom Limited (supra), the Hon ble high Court observed as under : 8. When a specific query was made to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents as to how the amount was again collected from the petitioner, it is submitted that it was on the persuasion made by the petitioner. For a moment, I am not able to appreciate the said stand taken by the respondents. Since the petition had already paid a sum of ₹ 28,42,745/- by way of book adjustments, the Customs Department ought not to have and, as a matter of fact, should not have again received the said sum by way of cash. Rightly, an Application was made by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of 3E Infotech (supra) had occasion to analyse the issue of levy when service tax is paid under mistake of law. The Ld. Counsel has also placed on record the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. KVR Constructions - 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. J70 (S.C.). The said decision arises out of an appeal filed by the department against the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka [2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.)], wherein it was held that the provisions of limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply for refund of service tax paid by mistake. 5.4 In Shravan Banarasilal Jejani - 2014 (35) S.T.R. 587 (Tri. - Mum.), the Tribunal had occasion to analyse a simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
