Refund of excess service tax on residential construction requires fresh review of returns, worksheet and unjust enrichment evidence.

Refund claims for alleged excess service tax paid on construction of a residential complex require examination of the assessee's ST-3 returns, revised returns and supporting worksheet to verify whether excess payment was actually made. In this context, the absence of invoices was not treated as decisive, and the land-cost agreement was considered irrelevant to the limited question of excess tax payment. The adjudicating authority must reassess the material afresh and then determine the objection of unjust enrichment by deciding whether the tax incidence was passed on. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the assessees an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from alleged excess payment of service tax on construction of residential complex required fresh examination on the basis of the assessees' returns and worksheet, and whether the objections relating to proof of excess payment and unjust enrichment were correctly applied.

Analysis: The claim was rejected below on the grounds of non-substantiation of excess payment and unjust enrichment. The available material showed that the assessees had filed ST-3 returns, revised returns, and a worksheet indicating tax payable, tax paid, and the amount claimed as excess. In the context of residential flat construction, the absence of invoices was held not to be decisive, and the land-cost agreement was treated as not relevant to the limited question whether excess tax had been paid. The proper course was for the adjudicating authority to examine the worksheet and returns afresh and then consider whether the incidence of tax had been passed on.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing to the assessees, and the refund claim was not finally rejected on merits.

---