TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Refund Allowed for Service Tax Paid on Architect and Consulting Services to SEZ Units Under Notification 9/2009-ST</h1> <h3>M/s. Intas Pharma Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Ahmedabad</h3> M/s. Intas Pharma Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Ahmedabad - 2013 (32) S.T.R. 543 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues involved:Refund claim under Notification No. 15/2009-ST for services consumed within SEZ.Detailed Analysis:1. Refund Claim and Notification No. 15/2009-ST:The appellant, a SEZ unit, claimed a refund of Rs. 1,30,410 under Notification No. 15/2009-ST for service tax remitted in relation to various services consumed within the SEZ. The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 56,650 for services like Architect, Interior Decorators, and Consulting Engineer, consumed within the SEZ. The authority held that these services were wholly consumed within the SEZ and thus fell beyond the scope of the notification.2. Appellate Proceedings:The appellant appealed against the rejection of the refund claim, arguing that the services provided by M/s. Venkataramanan Associates should be eligible for the refund under the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, citing interpretations of relevant legal provisions and Acts related to Architect services and SEZ regulations. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the rejection of the claim for services consumed within the SEZ was unsustainable.3. Legislative Provisions and Immunity to Service Tax:The Tribunal analyzed the legislative framework, including the SEZ Act, 2005, and relevant notifications like No. 9/2009-ST and No. 15/2009-ST. It highlighted that the SEZ Act provides immunity from taxes and duties for services provided within SEZs. The Tribunal emphasized that the notifications merely operationalize the process of claiming refunds for taxable services consumed within SEZs, without disentitling the immunity provided by the SEZ Act.4. Conclusion and Decision:Based on the comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and notifications, the Tribunal declared the rejection of the refund claim for services consumed within the SEZ as unsustainable. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appellant was deemed entitled to a refund of Rs. 56,650. The Tribunal clarified that the notifications facilitate the refund process for taxable services consumed within SEZs without affecting the overarching immunity provided by the SEZ Act.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the interplay between legislative provisions, notifications, and the immunity to service tax in SEZs, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant's refund claim for services consumed within the SEZ.
TaxTMI 