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>Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of co-writer on service tax refund issue</h1> <h3>M/s Shri Javed Akhtar Versus CCGST, Mumbai West</h3> M/s Shri Javed Akhtar Versus CCGST, Mumbai West - TMI Issues:- Entitlement to refund of service tax paid under protest without challenging assessment proceedings.Analysis:1. The appellant, a co-writer of a film, received a payment from a production company for copyright infringement, which was considered a declared service by the tax department under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellant paid service tax under protest, claiming it was compensation for damages to copyright and moral rights, not a payment for services rendered.3. Another co-writer, Mr. Salim Khan, faced a similar situation, paid tax under protest, but later received a refund after successful appeal and clarification that the payment was ex gratia, not for services.4. The appellant filed a refund claim based on the same grounds, arguing that since Mr. Salim Khan's payment was not taxable, his payment should also be refunded.5. The tax authorities rejected the appellant's refund claim, stating that he did not pay tax under protest as claimed, and his liability was accepted and closed earlier.6. The Commissioner upheld the rejection, emphasizing that the appellant did not challenge the earlier closure of proceedings before filing the refund claim.7. The appellant argued that the differential treatment between him and Mr. Salim Khan was arbitrary and violated constitutional provisions, as the payment made under protest should not be considered tax if no services were rendered.8. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and case laws cited, concluded that the appellant's payment was not for services rendered, and therefore, should be refunded as it was merely a deposit made under protest.9. The Tribunal emphasized that the retention of the amount by the tax authorities without any liability violated constitutional provisions and ordered the refund in favor of the appellant, stating that refund provisions should be interpreted liberally in favor of the assessee.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI regarding the entitlement to a refund of service tax paid under protest without challenging assessment proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
