2025 (3) TMI 1345 - AT - Service Tax

GTA service tax refund denied for export goods under Section 68 liability per Notification 41/2012-ST

PERFECT COKE PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX-BHAVNAGAR

CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of service tax refund claim on GTA services for export of excisable goods under Notification ... Refund of service tax paid on GTA services which were used for the purpose of export of excisable goods under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - rejection of claim of the appellant for the entire amount in view of the para 3 (b) of Notification No. 41/2012 –ST dated 29.06.2012 - HELD THAT:- The legislature has used words “person liable to pay service tax” which shows specific intention that the person who pays the service tax under Section 68 will not be eligible to claim rebate. Section 68 (2) starts with non-obstante clause i.e. “Notwithstanding”. Therefore, by virtue of subsection (2) certain category of service receiver become “person liable to pay” and therefore are hit by para 3 (b) of Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 - The central government vide notification no. 31/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 granted exemption from payment of service tax in the case of services provided to an exporter for transport of goods by Goods Transport Agency (GTA). So the exemption from payment of service tax on GTA services for export is well covered by this notification. It shows the intention of the legislature that instead of granting rebate in case of service provided by the Goods Transport Agencies (GTA), where the service recipient is liable for payment of service tax, an absolute exemption from payment of service tax is granted separately. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also cited the decision of Hon’ble Tribunal in case of M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd [2014 (12) TMI 205 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] in which it agreed with the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the refund of service tax paid on freight on transportation of goods for export from factory to port of export involved under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not eligible as per para 2 (a) of the N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - The Tribunal in the above case agreed with the above findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and did not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded in the order-in-appeal and with these observations the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Conclusion - The appellant is not eligible for a refund under N/N. 41/2012-ST due to their status as the person liable to pay service tax under Section 68. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not committed any irregularity, illegality or error in passing the impugned order - Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment revolve around the eligibility of the appellant to claim a refund of service tax paid on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services used for the export of goods. The specific questions include: Whether the appellant, as the recipient of the GTA services, is eligible for a refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2012-ST, despite being the person liable to pay the service tax under Section 68 of the Finance Act. Whether the provisions of earlier notifications, such as Notification No. 17/2009-ST and Notification No. 41/2007-ST, support the appellant's claim for a refund. Whether legislative intent and principles of taxation support the appellant's claim that taxes should not be exported along with goods.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Eligibility for Refund under Notification No. 41/2012-STRelevant legal framework and precedents: Notification No. 41/2012-ST specifies that the person liable to pay service tax on taxable services provided for export is not eligible for a rebate. Section 68 of the Finance Act outlines the liability for paying service tax.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that Notification No. 41/2012-ST clearly states that the person liable to pay service tax under Section 68 cannot claim a rebate. The appellant, being the service recipient, is liable for service tax under Section 68(2), which precludes them from claiming a refund.Key evidence and findings: The appellant argued that the legislative intent was to allow refunds for service tax paid on services used for exports, as indicated by earlier notifications. However, the Tribunal found that the specific wording of Notification No. 41/2012-ST was clear in its exclusion.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the non-obstante clause in Section 68(2) to determine that the appellant, as the person liable to pay service tax, is not eligible for a refund under the current notification.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's reliance on prior notifications and general principles of taxation was considered but ultimately dismissed due to the explicit language of Notification No. 41/2012-ST.2. Interpretation of Earlier Notifications and Legislative IntentRelevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant referenced Notification No. 17/2009-ST and Notification No. 41/2007-ST, which they argued supported a refund for service tax paid on GTA services. They also cited case law, such as East India Mineral Ltd, to support their position.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the appellant, noting that the specific provisions of Notification No. 41/2012-ST did not align with earlier notifications due to changes in legislative intent.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal highlighted the absence of a proviso in Notification No. 41/2012-ST that would allow the appellant to claim a refund under the conditions they described.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the specific provisions of Notification No. 41/2012-ST and found that the appellant's interpretation was not supported by the current legal framework.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding legislative intent but emphasized the need to adhere to the explicit language of the notification in question.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore principles established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that explicit statutory language takes precedence over general principles of taxation and legislative intent when determining eligibility for tax refunds.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not eligible for a refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST due to their status as the person liable to pay service tax under Section 68. The appeals were dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was confirmed.Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The legislature has used words 'person liable to pay service tax' which shows specific intention that the person who pays the service tax under Section 68 will not be eligible to claim rebate.'The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the specific language of tax notifications and statutes when determining eligibility for refunds or rebates, even when broader principles of taxation might suggest a different outcome.