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>Court orders refund of Rs. 1.24 crore due to incorrect application of Finance Act.</h1> <h3>KVR. CONSTRUCTIONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE</h3> KVR. CONSTRUCTIONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 6 (Kar.) , [2010] 25 STT 436 (KAR.) , [2010] 28 VST 190 (Kar) Issues:1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amounts paid as service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.2. Whether Section 11-B of the Act is applicable to the refund claim.3. Whether the denial of the refund claim by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise is justified.Analysis:1. The petitioner, engaged in construction activities, paid amounts through T.R.-6 challans despite not being liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise acknowledged that the construction services were non-taxable as per a Board Circular, and the amounts paid were akin to a deposit with the Government. The Asst. Commissioner wrongly rejected the refund claim based on an erroneous interpretation of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, which led to the petition for refund.2. The Asst. Commissioner's decision to reject the refund claim was based on the misconception that Section 11B of the Act applied to the refund process. However, since the amounts were treated as a deposit and not a duty, there was no requirement for the petitioner to invoke Section 11B for the refund. The Asst. Commissioner's misapplication of the law in this regard rendered the denial of the refund claim unsustainable.3. The High Court found that the Asst. Commissioner's denial of the refund claim was unjustified due to the incorrect application of Section 11B. The Court quashed the order that refused the refund and directed the 2nd respondent to refund the total amount of Rs. 1,23,96,948 to the petitioner promptly, within two weeks from the judgment date. The judgment clarified that the petitioner was not liable to pay service tax and was entitled to the refund of the deposited amounts, emphasizing the importance of correct legal interpretation in such matters.
TaxTMI 