SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Cus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiCus - The penalty imposed on assessee was set aside by Tribunal against which revenue is in appeal is far below the threshold limit fixed under Notification issued by CBDT, thus on the ground of monetary policy, revenue cannot proceed with this appeal: HCGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - If assessee is not charging VAT paid on purchase of goods & services to its P&L account i.e., not claiming it as expenditure, there is no requirement to treat refund of such VAT as income: ITATBengal Governor restricts entry of State FM and local police into Raj BhawanI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATCops flatten camps of protesting students at Columbia UnivI-T - No additions are permitted on account of bogus purchases, if evidence submitted on purchase going into export and further details provided of sellers remaining uncontroverted: ITATTurkey stops all trades with Israel over GazaI-T- Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) cannot be invoked, where a necessary condition of the money received without consideration by assessee, has not been fulfilled: ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political eventsI-T- As per settled position in law, cooperative housing society can claim deduction u/s 80P, if interest is earned on deposit of own funds in nationalised banks: ITATApple reports lower revenue despite good start of the yearI-T- Since difference in valuation is minor, considering specific exclusion provision benefit is granted to assessee : ITATHome-grown tech of thermal camera transferred to IndustryI-T - Presumption u/s 292C would apply only to person proceeded u/s 153A and not for assessee u/s 153C: ITATECI asks parties to cease registering voters for beneficiary-oriented schemes under guise of surveys
 
ST - Limitation u/s 11B is not applicable when tax paid mistakenly; Principle of unjust enrichment would not apply in case of composite contract price: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

KOLKATA, MAY 29, 2017: THE appellant had filed refund claims in respect of Service Tax paid by them under Works contract service for the various works executed by them for the Govt. of West Bengal and its various agencies for laying of pipelines for water supply, sewerage lines etc. It is the case of the appellant that they are not liable to pay Service Tax.

The refund claims were rejected on the ground of time bar and unjust enrichment and that the appellant had availed abatement benefit and, therefore, are not entitled to refund.

The Commissioner(Appeals) observed that although the lower authority had rejected the refund claim as hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment since the refund amount was not ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, the matter was remitted.

Aggrieved, the appellant is before the CESTAT.

After considering the elaborate submissions made by the appellant, the Bench observed noted that there is no dispute that the Service Tax was collected wrongly from the appellant during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09;that both the authorities below denied the refund claim on the ground that a part of the refund claim is barred by limitation beyond the period of one year from the date of deposit of Service Tax as evident from GAR-7 challans.

Adverting to the decisions in Jubilant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-702-CESTAT-MUM, Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers - 2010-TIOL-632-CESTAT-MUM, Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-1602-HC-KERALA-ST, Hexacom (I) Ltd. - 2006-TIOL-1334-CESTAT-DEL, Amadalavalasa Cooperative Sugars Ltd. - 2007-TIOL-774-CESTAT-BANG M/s. Monnet International Ltd. & Another - 2017-TIOL-1023-CESTAT-DEL, the CESTAT held -

"14. On perusal of the above decisions…, it is seen that the limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not be applicable in case of payment of tax mistakenly. Further, the principle of unjust enrichment would not apply in the case of composite contract price, as applicable in the present case. …I have also seen the sample invoices placed by the appellants….Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the refund of tax as claimed by them."

The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2017-TIOL-1782-CESTAT-KOL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST