Export service tax refund cannot be denied for procedural delay or mere accounting treatment under unjust enrichment principles.

Refund of service tax on exported services cannot be denied merely because export-related documents were filed late, where the substantive conditions of the exemption notification are otherwise satisfied; the delay is a procedural lapse and does not defeat the refund. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also does not apply merely because the tax was shown as an expense in the profit and loss account, since accounting treatment alone does not prove that the burden was passed on to customers. The refund claim was therefore allowed, and the accounting entry was treated as insufficient to bar relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether delay in furnishing export-related documents and compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 31/2012-ST could justify denial of refund of service tax paid on exported services; (ii) whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment on the basis that the tax amount was shown as an expense in the profit and loss account.

Issue (i): Whether delay in furnishing export-related documents and compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 31/2012-ST could justify denial of refund of service tax paid on exported services.

Analysis: The refund arose from tax paid on services used for export and the substantive eligibility under the exemption notification was not in dispute. The required export documents and prescribed forms had been filed, and the delay was treated below as non-compliance of the notification conditions. The Tribunal held that where export and payment of service tax are established, delayed compliance with documentary requirements is only a procedural lapse and cannot defeat the substantial benefit of refund under the exemption notification.

Conclusion: The denial of refund on the ground of delayed documentary compliance was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment on the basis that the tax amount was shown as an expense in the profit and loss account.

Analysis: The tax had been paid by the assessee and, until refund, its accounting as an indirect expense was treated as consistent with its actual outgo. The Tribunal noted the affidavit stating that, if refund were granted, the amount would be credited as income in the relevant year. Mere accounting entries showing the tax as expenditure did not, by themselves, establish that the incidence had been passed on to customers.

Conclusion: The objection based on unjust enrichment was rejected and the finding below was held to be presumptive and irrelevant.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to refund of the service tax paid, as neither procedural delay in documentary compliance nor the accounting treatment of the tax amount justified denial of the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantial refund benefits under an exemption notification cannot be denied for mere procedural delay where the substantive conditions are met, and unjust enrichment is not established merely from accounting treatment of the duty or tax as an expense.

---