Service tax recovery from Goods Transport Operator service recipients failed, with consequential refund allowed after the demand was set aside.

Service tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held not recoverable from recipients of Goods Transport Operator services for the relevant period, following the binding view on retrospective amendments; the demand was therefore unsustainable and was rejected against the Revenue. Once the notice and demand failed, the assessee was entitled to consequential refund, with no separate ground shown to deny that relief. The Tribunal's view was upheld and the Revenue's challenge dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was recoverable under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 from the recipient of Goods Transport Operator services for the relevant period. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to consequential refund after the demand was set aside.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was recoverable under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 from the recipient of Goods Transport Operator services for the relevant period.

Analysis: The applicable demand related to the period when the liability of recipients of Goods Transport Operator services was considered in the light of the retrospective amendments to the Finance Act, 1994. The Court followed the earlier binding view that Section 73 could not be invoked to recover service tax from such recipients for the relevant period, and that the demand was not sustainable on the basis adopted by the Department.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to consequential refund after the demand was set aside.

Analysis: Once the liability notice and demand were held unsustainable, the assessee became entitled to the consequential relief flowing from that determination. The Court accepted that the refund followed as a necessary consequence of the setting aside of the tax demand, and no independent ground was made out to deny that relief.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the Tribunal's view, rejected the Revenue's challenge, and sustained the assessee's entitlement to the refund consequence arising from the failure of the service tax demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing law and binding precedent do not permit recovery of service tax under Section 73 for the relevant class and period, the related demand fails and the assessee is entitled to consequential refund.

---