2015 (3) TMI 1050 - HC - Service Tax

Court orders prompt refund of service tax to appellant, emphasizes importance of compliance with appellate order. Increased interest rate awarded.

M/s. Madura Coats Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India And Others

The court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the respondent to promptly refund the service tax despite multiple challenges and legal proceedings. ... Denial of refund claim - refusal of pay the refund despite no stay granted by the court against hte refund order - Held that:- respondent was fully aware that it was liable to refund the service tax deposited by the appellant in terms of the order dated 28.12.2011 and for that reason it had filed the stay application and once the stay application had been rejected, the order dated 28.12.2011 ought to have been implemented, as it is a fact that the order dated 10.9.2012 rejecting the stay application had become final. In such view of the matter, though the observations of the learned Single Judge that the respondent would be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. may not be interfered with but, in our view, the writ Court ought to have allowed the writ petition and directed refund of the service tax deposited by the petitioner/appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Refusal to refund service tax despite competent authority's direction.2. Dispute over liability for service tax payment by a non-resident person.3. Challenge to the order directing credit to Consumer Welfare Fund.4. Rejection of stay application for refund.5. Appeal against the order for interest on service tax refund.6. Contention regarding pending appeal and refund claim.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the unusual scenario where the respondent failed to refund service tax despite a directive from the competent authority. The stay application filed by the respondent challenging the refund order was dismissed, yet the refund was not processed, leading to the appellant filing a writ petition seeking the refund.2. The main issue revolved around the liability of the petitioner for service tax payment for a specific period as a non-resident person had already paid the tax. After a prolonged legal battle, the appellate authorities directed the refund of the service tax to the petitioner, which was further contested by the respondent, leading to multiple appeals and applications.3. A significant aspect of the case was the direction to credit the refunded amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund instead of directly paying it to the assessee to prevent undue enrichment. This decision was challenged by the appellant, leading to further legal proceedings and appeals.4. Despite the Tribunal rejecting the respondent's stay application, the service tax remained unreimbursed, prompting the appellant to seek judicial intervention through a writ petition. The High Court, in its judgment, highlighted the failure to implement the appellate order for refund despite the finality of the rejection of the stay application.5. The appeal also touched upon the issue of interest on the service tax refund, with the court directing an increased rate of interest based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court acknowledged the validity of the interest rate determined in the previous judgment but emphasized the need for the refund of the service tax to the petitioner.6. Lastly, the court analyzed the respondent's contention regarding the pending appeal and the potential impact of refunding the service tax on the ongoing legal proceedings. The court scrutinized the actions of the respondent, emphasizing that the rejection of the stay application implied the necessity to implement the refund order, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and directing the respondent to refund the service tax promptly.