3. The impugned demand is unsustainable both on facts and in law. Under the Finance Act, 1994, Service Tax is attracted only on consideration retained towards provision of taxable service. In the present case, the amount received on 27.05.2016 represented advance booking consideration for a flat, but the booking was subsequently cancelled and the entire advance amount was refunded to the customer on 29.03.2019. Once the transaction itself stood rescinded and no service was ultimately rendered, the consideration ceased to have the character of taxable value. It is a settled principle that Service Tax is a levy on rendition of service and not on mere receipt of advances where the underlying transaction fails and the amount is returned. Consequently, no taxable event survives after cancellation of booking and refund of the entire consideration. Reliance may be placed on the ratio laid down in CCE v. Reliance Industries Ltd. and other decisions holding that tax cannot be retained where consideration is refunded and the service is not provided. The Department cannot seek to tax a transaction that ultimately resulted in no provision of taxable service and no retention of consideration.
Without prejudice, even assuming tax was initially payable on receipt basis under the Point of Taxation Rules, once the booking stood cancelled and the amount was refunded, the assessee became entitled to adjustment/refund in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which specifically contemplates situations where services are not provided wholly or partially and the value thereof is refunded. The substantive benefit of adjustment/refund cannot be denied on procedural grounds when the fact of cancellation and refund is undisputed. It is well settled by judicial authorities, including CCE v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd., that tax cannot be collected on amounts not constituting consideration for taxable services. Further, retention of Service Tax in such circumstances would amount to unjust enrichment of the revenue contrary to the scheme of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the demand, interest and consequential penalties deserve to be set aside in entirety, as no taxable value ultimately accrued to the appellant on account of the cancelled flat booking and the refunded advance consideration.
Further, in Guardian Landmarks LLP v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune II reported as 2023 (6) TMI 309 - CESTAT Mumbai, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that once the buyer cancels the booking and the consideration is returned, the service contract stands terminated, and once it is established that no service is rendered, the refund of tax becomes admissible. The Tribunal further held that retaining such amounts would violate Article 265 of the Constitution of India, since no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law.
On further grounds, it may be submitted that it is a well settled principle that tax can be imposed only when a taxable event occurs. The taxable event under service tax is rendition of service. Since no service was ultimately rendered and the contract stood cancelled, the very foundation of the levy disappears. The demand is unsustainable both on the ground that no taxable service was provided and on the ground that no amount remained chargeable in the hands of your client after the full refund was made to the buyer. At max, your client may be mulcted with demand of penalty for not following the statutory provisions in accordance with law.