2020 (4) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not appear on the previous date on 19.12.2019, the matter is fixed for today for final hearing and disposal.   2. Heard the learned Authorised Representative for the Department and perused the record.   3. The appellant is a builder at Indore and registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of 'construction of residential complex service'. They have been depositing tax on the advance received from the prospective buyer(s) of the premises (units) and filing return regularly. They constructed residential project at Nepania and deposited service tax on the advances received from the customers from time to time. However, the project got delayed due to unavoidable circumstances and some of the customers demanded ref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cess payment of service tax in terms of Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, but such amount could not be adjusted as provided, since the amount to be adjusted was in excess of the liability on account of service tax during the subsequent period. Upon introduction of GST (from 01.07.2017) such excess amount of credit could not be further adjusted and accordingly was required to be refunded. Accordingly, the appellant filed refund claim on 21.07.2017. The refund claim was rejected vide order-in-original dated 05.03.2018 on the ground of time bar. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to record the observation by allowing the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority, on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n-adjustable and consequently appellant have to file refund claim. Further, Section 142 of CGST specifically provides for refund of service tax during service tax regime, in respect of service is not provided. Learned Counsel have also relied upon the ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in K.V.R. Constructions vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - 2010 (17) STR 6 (Kar.) wherein the assessee had paid service tax for construction activity, though they were not liable to pay service tax, they applied for refund on 28.03.2008 of tax paid from 2005-06 to 2006-07. The refund claim was rejected on the ground of limitation, having been filed beyond one year, as per Section 11B of the Act. However, the finding was recorded that KVR Cons....