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 payment over Consumer Welfare Fund credit.</h1> <h3>LOTUS HOSPITALITY SERVICES Versus CE & ST-UDAIPUR</h3> LOTUS HOSPITALITY SERVICES Versus CE & ST-UDAIPUR - TMI Issues:Refund claim rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment and time bar.Analysis:The appellant, a catering service provider, charged Service Tax to M/s Sir Padampat Singhania University from January 2013 to November 2013. Subsequently, they realized their services were exempted from Service Tax as per Notification No. 25/2012-ST. A refund claim was filed on 24/04/2014. The lower authorities rejected a portion of the claim (Rs. 6,36,943) due to being time-barred under Section 11B and credited the balance (Rs. 9,96,450) to the Consumer Welfare Fund for unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that they were unaware of the exemption and provided evidence from the university and their CA to support that the amount was not retained by them.The appellant argued that the lower authorities unfairly rejected the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. They presented a letter from the university confirming the recovery of the amount and a certificate from their CA stating that the refund amount was not collected by them. Therefore, they requested the refund to be paid to them in cash instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.The Revenue contended that the portion of the refund claim hit by time bar should not be considered, and reiterated the lower authority's finding on the unjust enrichment issue for the remaining amount.After considering both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Service Tax was paid due to ignorance of the exemption. They upheld the rejection of the time-barred portion of the claim. However, they observed that the appellant successfully proved that the refund amount was not unjustly enriched as evidenced by the CA certificate and the university's confirmation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ordering the refund to be paid to the appellant instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
