Refund cannot be denied for invoice misdescription where the underlying service dispute was already decided on merits.

Refund under Notification No. 9/2009-ST could not be denied merely because the invoices described the services as "General Management Fees", as the Tribunal treated that description as insufficient to defeat the claim where the underlying activities had already been examined on merits. It noted that in the assessee's own earlier appeal the same dispute had been decided in favour of the respondent, including the related time-bar aspect, and that the service provider had functioned as a property manager. The department's challenge was therefore not accepted, and the refund-related finding in favour of the respondent was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Notification No. 9/2009-ST could be denied on the ground of misdescription of services in the invoices and whether the issue had already attained finality in the assessee's own case.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the very same dispute regarding the description of services as "General Management Fees" had been examined earlier in the assessee's own appeal. In that decision, it was held that the service provider functioned as a property manager and that the activities undertaken were not to be confined only to one description in the invoice. The Tribunal reiterated that misclassification or misdescription in the invoices, by itself, could not sustain rejection of the refund claim, and that the issue had already been decided on merits, including the related time-bar aspect, in favour of the respondent.

Conclusion: The challenge by the department was not accepted and the refund-related finding in favour of the respondent was maintained.

---