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>Court Directs Petitioners to Apply for Service Tax Refund; Tax Authorities Agree to Process as per Legal Norms.</h1> <h3>PUNJ LLOYD LTD. & ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.</h3> The court disposed of the petition concerning excess service tax payments without costs, directing the petitioners to apply for a refund. The tax ... Refund of excess service tax paid - Reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- The petitioners states that they had made representation dated 16th June, 2015 receipt of which has been disputed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4. There is no need to record any finding regarding the same as the petitioner can file an application seeking refund and it can make all averments and assertions as were made in the representation dated 16th June, 2015. Recording the aforesaid statement of the petitioner that it would make an application for refund and directing that the same would be dealt with by the first to fourth respondents, in accordance with law, the writ petition is disposed of, without any order as to costs. Issues involved:1. Excess service tax payment by petitioners2. Refund of excess service tax3. Disputed representation dateAnalysis:1. The petitioners claimed they had paid excess service tax and sought a refund. Respondent nos. 1 to 4, including Union of India and tax authorities, stated the petitioners could apply for a refund by submitting an application.2. Respondent no. 5, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, acknowledged paying 50% of the service tax on reverse charge and did not seek a refund for the tax paid under this category. The petitioners agreed to file a refund application based on the statements made by all parties involved.3. The petitioners mentioned submitting a representation dated 16th June, 2015, but respondent nos. 1 to 4 disputed receiving it. The court decided not to make a finding on this issue, as the petitioners could include all relevant details from the representation in their refund application.4. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on other aspects raised in the writ petition or make any observations on merits. The petition was disposed of without any costs, with the direction that the refund application would be processed by the tax authorities in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
