2021 (8) TMI 650 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal overturns refund claim rejection, stresses timely filing & required documentation. Precedents cited.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of the refund claim due to non-submission of necessary documents. Emphasizing the importance of ... Refund of service tax - rejection of refund on the ground of non-submission of necessary documents as per N/N. 41/2016 dated 22.09.2016 - non-compliance of requirements under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Finance Act, 1944 vide Section 83 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant filed refund claim which arose as a consequence of introduction of Section 104 of the Finance Act w.e.f. 31.03.2017. Further, N/N. 41/2016 dated 22.09.2016 has exempted taxable service provided by the State Government Industrial Development Corporation/Undertakings to industrial units by way of granting long term lease on industrial plot from so much of service tax leviable thereon under Section 66B of the said Act, as is leviable on the one time upfront amount payable for such lease. Vide Section 104 (1), exemption was provided from said services for the period from 01.06.2007 to 21.09.2016 and it was provided that the refund claim should be filed within a period of six months from the date from which Finance Act, 2017 is promulgated and come into force. In the present case, the appellant filed the refund claim within time and the only ground for which the refund was rejected by the Original Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority is that the appellant did not produce sufficient documents in the form of invoices/bills showing that they have paid the service tax to KINFRA. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed various invoices/bills issued by KINFRA showing the payment of service tax by the appellant for which the refund claim has been filed by the appellant - KINFRA has also issued a certificate dated 02.02.2021 certifying that they have not availed any CENVAT credit on the service tax paid by the appellant. These bills/invoices issued by KINFRA clearly show the payment of service tax by the appellant to KINFRA and KINFRA in turn has paid the same to the Government. Though these invoices/bills were not produced before the Original Authority but various Challans issued by KINFRA were produced along with worksheets showing the payment of service tax to KINFRA by the appellant. The appellants have produced sufficient documents to prove the payment of service tax - refund cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund claim rejection based on non-submission of necessary documents.Analysis:The appellant filed a refund claim under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017, seeking exemption for taxable services provided by the State Government or KINFRA. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that Section 104 is a standalone provision and should not be controlled by general provisions like Section 83 of the Finance Act. They provided documentary evidence of tax payment to KINFRA and a certificate confirming no CENVAT credit claimed. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was filed within the specified time frame and the rejection was solely due to lack of invoices/bills showing payment to KINFRA.The Tribunal found that the appellant eventually submitted invoices/bills from KINFRA demonstrating the service tax payment, supported by a certificate from KINFRA. Despite these documents not being initially presented, the Tribunal considered the Challans and worksheets provided as evidence of payment. Relying on precedents where similar appeals were allowed, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had now furnished adequate proof of tax payment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of submitting necessary documents to prove tax payment. The judgment highlighted the significance of timely filing refund claims and the impact of specific provisions overriding general provisions in tax laws.