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>Tribunal Orders Refund for Double Taxation Issue</h1> <h3>Rambal Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai</h3> Rambal Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-III, Chennai - 2017 (4) G. S. T. L. 333 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Appellant's entitlement to refund of double taxation on service tax.2. Dispute regarding the denial of refund by Revenue.Analysis:1. The appellant, a recipient of manpower services, initially claimed Cenvat credit for service tax paid based on invoices from the service provider. However, upon realizing that its liability was limited to 75% of the service tax and should have been paid by the service recipient, the appellant paid the correct amount with interest. The appellant contended that the same transaction was doubly taxed, first by the service provider and then by the service recipient, justifying a refund of the excess amount paid. The Tribunal acknowledged the double taxation issue and the appellant's compliance with the correct liability, citing legal precedents emphasizing that amounts not due to the State should be refunded. The Tribunal also noted the service provider's no objection for the refund, directing that the appellant be refunded the amount paid by the service provider. It was emphasized that the appellant should ensure the service provider does not claim the refund, given the no objection provided. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that since there was double payment and the liability rested with the appellant, the appellant should not be denied Cenvat credit.2. The Revenue contended that the denial of the refund was justified. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the show cause notice, found in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted the principle of unjust enrichment, stating that the State should refund money not rightfully due to it. Legal precedents and the doctrine of unjust enrichment were cited to support the decision to grant the refund to the appellant. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the same service had been taxed twice, leading to the conclusion that the State should rectify the overpayment by refunding the excess amount. The Tribunal's ruling allowed the appeal, providing specific directions for the refund and emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to the refund due to the double taxation issue and the correct liability position established during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 