Refund rejection overturned; section 11B unjust enrichment applies, with section 102 limit, co-applicant rights for government entities

CESTAT set aside the Assistant Commissioner's rejection of refund of service tax on the ground of unjust enrichment. It held that, except for the special limitation under section 102 of the Finance Act, the refund provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, including the doctrine of unjust enrichment and credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund, fully apply. The authority erred in rejecting the claim instead of crediting the amount to the Fund. However, as the tax burden had been borne by specified government entities, they must be allowed to join as co-applicants. The matter was remanded with directions accordingly.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(1) Whether refund of service tax claimed under section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 is governed by the refund and unjust enrichment provisions contained in section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax.

(2) Whether issuance of No Objection Certificates by the service recipients (CPWD, DSIIDC and NBCC) enables sanction of the refund amount to the appellant, notwithstanding the doctrine of unjust enrichment under section 11B.

(3) Whether the proper course in law, where the tax incidence has been passed on to the service recipients, is rejection of the refund claim or sanction of refund with credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and whether the service recipients can be permitted to join as co-applicants to pursue the refund.

(4) Whether previous Single Member decisions of the Tribunal allowing refund to the service provider in similar situations are binding on the Division Bench in view of section 11B and the decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (1): Applicability of section 11B / unjust enrichment to refunds under section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994

Legal framework

(a) Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 grants a special exemption, with retrospective effect, from levy and collection of service tax on specified construction services provided to Government, local authority or Governmental authority under contracts entered into before 1 March 2015, for the period 1 April 2015 to 29 February 2016, and provides for refund of service tax so collected, subject to filing of application within six months from the date of Presidential assent to the Finance Bill, 2016.

(b) Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to service tax via section 83 of the Finance Act, governs claims and sanction of refund, incorporates a rebuttable presumption that the incidence of duty/tax has been passed on, and mandates credit of refundable amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund unless the claimant establishes absence of unjust enrichment; it also recognises the buyer (or, in service tax, the service recipient) as a potential refund claimant where the burden was borne by such buyer.

Interpretation and reasoning

(c) The Court noted that, but for the special limitation period prescribed in section 102(3), all refund claims of service tax are to be made and processed under section 11B. Section 102 modifies only the period of limitation and nowhere excludes or modifies the unjust enrichment mechanism under section 11B.

(d) The principle underlying indirect taxes was emphasised: unlike income tax, the person paying service tax is ordinarily not the one bearing its economic incidence; hence refunds are not automatic and must be governed by the statutory unjust enrichment scheme.

(e) The Court held that the provisions of section 11B, including the rebuttable presumption that the burden of tax is passed on and the consequential requirement of crediting refunds to the Consumer Welfare Fund, are fully applicable to refunds under section 102, in the absence of any contrary stipulation in section 102.

(f) The doctrine of unjust enrichment contained in section 11B has been upheld by a nine-Member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, rendering those provisions binding and "sacrosanct".

Conclusions

(g) Refunds under section 102 of the Finance Act are subject to section 11B of the Central Excise Act, including the statutory presumption of passing on of tax incidence and the requirement of crediting sanctioned refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund unless unjust enrichment is rebutted.

Issue (2): Effect of No Objection Certificates from service recipients on unjust enrichment and entitlement of the appellant to refund

Interpretation and reasoning

(a) It was undisputed that the appellant collected the impugned service tax amounts from CPWD, DSIIDC and NBCC and thus passed on the incidence of tax to these service recipients.

(b) Under section 11B, where the tax incidence has been passed on, the primary entitlement to refund lies either (i) with the person who has borne the incidence of duty/tax (here, the service recipients), or (ii) with the Consumer Welfare Fund, unless the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment is rebutted by evidence that the burden was not passed on.

(c) The appellant relied on No Objection Certificates from CPWD, DSIIDC and NBCC to contend that refund could be sanctioned to it despite having passed on the tax incidence. The Court held that such NOCs issued by officers of the service recipient organisations cannot override or substitute the statutory mechanism enacted by Parliament in section 11B.

(d) The NOCs were found to have "no relevance in the law" because the statute unequivocally lays down how unjust enrichment is to be prevented and how refunds are to be disbursed; executive or contractual arrangements between parties cannot alter that statutory allocation.

Conclusions

(e) Since the appellant passed on the service tax to CPWD, DSIIDC and NBCC, it is not legally entitled to receive the refund on the strength of NOCs. Such NOCs cannot displace the unjust enrichment bar under section 11B.

Issue (3): Proper treatment of the refund claim-rejection vs credit to Consumer Welfare Fund; scope for service recipients to be co-applicants

Interpretation and reasoning

(a) The authorities below rejected the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Court examined section 11B(2) and held that where refund is otherwise admissible but unjust enrichment is attracted, the law mandates that the sanctioned refund amount be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund; section 11B does not contemplate rejection of the refund claim on that ground.

(b) Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have sanctioned the refund (as admissible under section 102) and credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, instead of rejecting the claim.

(c) The Court then considered the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Ranjeet Singh Choudhary, where in a writ petition involving similar facts under section 102, the High Court, after considering section 11B and Mafatlal Industries Ltd., held that the refund claim could be pursued not by the service provider but by CPWD, and permitted CPWD to join as co-applicant in the refund proceedings; the order crediting refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside and the matter was remanded to enable CPWD to pursue the refund.

(d) Following the ratio and approach of the Gujarat High Court, and recognising that in the present case the incidence of tax was borne by CPWD, DSIIDC and NBCC, the Court held that these entities should be afforded an opportunity to join as co-applicants and claim refund as the proper parties entitled to it.

Conclusions

(e) The rejection of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment was legally incorrect; the correct course under section 11B is to sanction the refund and credit it to the Consumer Welfare Fund where unjust enrichment is not rebutted.

(f) However, consistent with the Gujarat High Court's decision, CPWD, DSIIDC and NBCC, being the persons who actually bore the service tax incidence, may join as co-applicants and, if they do so within three months, the Assistant Commissioner shall sanction refund to them; otherwise, the refund amount shall be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Issue (4): Authority of previous Single Member Tribunal decisions permitting refund to service providers and their consistency with section 11B and Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

Interpretation and reasoning

(a) The appellant relied on several Single Member decisions of the Tribunal (including S N Atiwadkar, Lakshmi Engineers, M/s. Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Sons, A P Enterprises, Shree Construction Company, and Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry) which had granted refund to service providers based on similar NOC-type arrangements with service recipients.

(b) The Court, sitting as a Division Bench, held that these Single Member decisions are not binding on it, and on examination found them to be contrary to the statutory scheme of section 11B and the ratio laid down in Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

(c) It was noted that these Single Member orders had not considered the Constitution Bench decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and, by effectively creating alternative mechanisms to avoid unjust enrichment outside section 11B, purported to go beyond the law enacted by Parliament.

(d) The Court held that the Tribunal, as a creature of statute, cannot devise any alternative mechanism to deal with unjust enrichment other than that prescribed in section 11B, particularly in light of the binding authority of Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

Conclusions

(e) The earlier Single Member decisions relied upon by the appellant are not binding on the Division Bench and are treated as per incuriam to the extent they conflict with section 11B and the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd.; the Tribunal must strictly follow the statutory unjust enrichment mechanism.

Overall Disposition

(f) The impugned appellate order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner with directions: (i) to permit CPWD, DSIIDC and NBCC to join as co-applicants within three months; (ii) if they do so, to sanction refund to them; and (iii) if they do not, to sanction refund but credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund in accordance with section 11B.

---