9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax of Rs.145,390. The lower authorities are not denying the fact that Rs.145,390 has been paid by the appellant. The only ground taken by them to deny the refund claim is that this refund being claimed was not being shown as part of the Returns filed by the appellant. It is a clear case of mistake on the part of the appellant and they have paid excess service tax which should have been refunded to the appellant based on the documentary evidence like the challan and Invoice etc. Such an issue is covered by the decision of the The Punjab-Haryana High Court in the case of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED VERSUS CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER. [2024 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clients. On this consideration, they are required to pay service tax of Rs.17,855. However, while paying the service tax, by mistake they have paid an amount of Rs.1,45,390 instead of paying only Rs.17, 855. 2. On 27-07-2015, the appellant has filed a refund claim in Form R stating that by mistake they have paid higher amount of service tax in the month of June 2015 and requested that the excess payment to be refunded to them. 3. The lower authorities have dismissed the refund claim filed by the appellant. Being aggrived, the appellant has filed this present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant submits through their Written Notes today that the refund claimed is purely on account of excess service tax paid by them by mistake whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gineer, Transmission System vs Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate - Appeal No. CEA 46/2018 judgement dated 13 August, 2024, which has held as under : 15. Article 265 of the Constitution of India prevents the authorities from collecting tax illegally. In other words, any amount which has been deposited with the State under a head can only be allowed to be retained if the same is deposited legally and not erroneously, illegally or without knowledge. 16. The claim of the appellant for refund therefore, cannot be allowed to be defeated solely on the basis that one year has elapsed from the date of deposit. It is to be noticed that the appellant-company had come to know about the wrong deposit of amount as service tax on 30.08.2016 when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
