AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,422/- on 19.02.2013 under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, being the service tax paid on the construction of Church undertaken by them for M/s. Anna Nagar Methodist Church Chennai due to the reason that they were not liable to pay service tax on such construction. The claim pertains to nine invoices covering the period 02.05.2011 to 01.11.2012. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority vide the Order in Original dated 21.04.2014 sanctioned the refund of Rs.1,28,291/-and rejected the remaining amount of Rs.2,92,131/-. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II) to the extent of rejection of refund, on the grounds, inter-alia, that the construction of the church was complete before 01.07.2012; that as per Circular No. 162/13/2012-ST dated 06.07.2012 the Rule 4 of the Point of Taxation Rules shall not apply as it was not considered to be a 'change in effective rate'; that as per Circular No.62/11/2003-ST dated 21.08.2003, if service is rendered prior to the date of imposition of levy of service tax on the particular service, service tax cannot be levied, that regarding rejection on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the time limit to prefer the refund claim contained in Section 11B of the Act does not apply. She places reliance on the decisions in M/s. Omya India Pvt Ltd, represented by its Customs Service Manager, Mrs.Vrinda Mule Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds-II), Chennai reported in 2024 (9) TMI 1094 (MAD HC),CCE(Appeals), Bangalore Vs KVR Construction reported in 2012 (7) TMI 22 (BGLR HC)- at paras 18 to 25. Maintained in SC - 2011 (7) TMI 1334,M/s. 3E Infotech Vs Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I) reported in 2018 (7) TMI 276- MAD HC, Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata Vs M/s. Electrosteel castings Limited reported in 2025 (1) TMI 633-CAL HC, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs M/s. Credible Engineering Construction Projects Ltd reported in 2024 (4) TMI 1041-TELANGANA HC and Mr. Naveen P.G. Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru North Commissionerate reported in 2025 (2) TMI 103 (Tri-Bang.). 5. Learned Authorised Representative, Shri N. Satyanarayana appeared for the Department and reiterated the findings in the impugned order in appeal. Ld. A.R. submits that the rejection of refund as it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....animous verdict of five Judges, out of the nine Judges, that becomes the effective and binding judgment in this case. The relevant portions of the said majority judgement are reproduced as under: "17. We must, however, pause here and explain the various situations in which claims for refund may arise. They may arise in more than one situation. One is where a provision of the Act under which tax is levied is struck down as unconstitutional for transgressing the constitutional limitations. This class of cases, we may call, for the sake of convenience, as cases of "unconstitutional levy". In this class of cases, the claim for refund arises outside the provisions of the Act, for this is not a situation contemplated by the Act. 18. Second situation is where the tax is collected by the authorities under the Act by mis-construction or wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Act, Rules and Notifications or by an erroneous determination of the relevant facts, i.e., an erroneous finding of fact. This class of cases may be called, for the sake of convenience, as illegal levy. In this class of cases, the claim for refund arises under the provisions of the Act. In other words, these a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereafter - by mis-interpreting or mis-applying the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Tariff Act or by mis-interpreting or mis-applying any of the rules, regulations or notifications issued under the said enactments, such a claim has necessarily to be preferred under and in accordance with the provisions of the respective enactment before the authorities specified thereunder and within the period of limitation prescribed therein. No suit is maintainable in that behalf. While the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 - and of this Court under Article 32 - cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of the said enactments, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the said Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. The writ petition will be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B. This is for the reason that the power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not for abrogating it. The said enactme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... naturally be calculated taking into account the principle underlying Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963. A refund claim in such a situation cannot be governed by the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act or the Customs Act, as the case may be, since the enactments do not contemplate any of their provisions being struck down and a refund claim arising on that account. In other words, a claim of this nature is not contemplated by the said enactments and is outside their purview. (iii) A claim for refund, whether made under the provisions of the Act as contemplated in Proposition (i) above or in a suit or writ petition in the situations contemplated by Proposition (ii) above, can succeed only if the petitioner/plaintiff alleges and establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to another person/other persons. His refund claim shall be allowed/decreed only when he establishes that he has not passed on the burden of the duty or to the extent he has not so passed on, as the case may be. Whether the claim for restitution is treated as a constitutional imperative or as a statutory requirement, it is neither an absolute right nor a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....65 of the Constitution has to be construed in the light of the goal and the ideals set out in the Preamble to the Constitution and in Articles 38 and 39 thereof. The concept of economic justice demands that in the case of indirect taxes Central Excises duties and Customs duties, the tax collected without the authority of law shall not be refunded to the petitioner-plaintiff unless he alleges and establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to a third party and that he has himself borne the burden of the said duty. (vi) Section 72 of the Contract Act is based upon and incorporates a rule of equity. In such a situation, equitable considerations cannot be ruled out while applying the said provision. (vii) While examining the claims for refund, the financial chaos which would result in the administration of the State by allowing such claims is not an irrelevant consideration. Where the petitioner- plaintiff has suffered no real loss or prejudice, having passed on the burden of tax or duty to another person, it would be unjust to allow or decree his claim since it is bound to prejudicially affect the public exchequer. In case of large claims, it may well result in financ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regime of law and not for abrogating it. Even while acting in exercise of the said constitutional power, the High Court cannot ignore the law nor can it over-ride it. The power under Article 226 is conceived to serve the ends of law and not to transgress them. (xi) Section 11B applies to all pending proceedings notwithstanding the fact that the duty may have been refunded to the petitioner/plaintiff pending the proceedings or under the orders of the Court/Tribunal/Authority or otherwise. It must be held that Union of India v. Jain Spinners [1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (SC) = 1992 (4) S.C.C. 389] and Union of India v. I.T.C. [1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (SC) = 1993 Suppl. (4) S.C.C. 326] have been correctly decided. It is, of course, obvious that where the refund proceedings have finally terminated - in the sense that the appeal period has also expired - before the commencement of the 1991 (Amendment) Act [September 19, 1991], they cannot be re-opened and/or governed by Section 11B(3) [as amended by the 1991 (Amendment) Act]. This, however, does not mean that the power of the Appellate Authorities to condone delay in appropriate cases is affected in any manner by this clarification made by us. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time under the Central Excises and Salt Act. Whether it is Rule 11 (as it stood from time to time) or Section 11B (as it obtained before 1991 or subsequent thereto), they invariably purported to be exhaustive on the question of refund. Rule 11, as in force prior to August 6, 1977, stated that "no duties and charges which have been paid or have been adjusted....shall be refunded unless the claimant makes an application for such refund under his signature and lodges it to the proper officers within three months from the date of such payment or adjustment, as the case may be". Rule 11, as in force between August 6, 1977 and November 17, 1980 contained sub- rule (4) which expressly declared: "(4) Save as otherwise provided by or under this rule, no claim of refund of any duty shall be entertained". Section 11B, as in force prior to April, 1991 contained sub-section (4) in identical words. It said : "(4) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, no claim for refund of any duty of excise shall be entertained". Sub-section (5) was more specific and emphatic. It said : "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the provisions of this section shall also apply to a claim fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 20 may have been in serious doubt, but since it does provide such remedies, its validity was beyond challenge. To repeat - and it is necessary to do so - so long as Section 11B is constitutionally valid, it has to be followed and given effect to. We can see no reason on which the constitutionality of the said provision - or a similar provision - can be doubted. It must also be remembered that Central Excises and Salt Act is a special enactment creating new and special obligations and rights, which at the same time prescribes the procedure for levy, assessment, collection, refund and all other incidental and ancillary provisions. As pointed out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which became the Act, the Act along with the Rules was intended to "form a complete central excise code". The idea was "to consolidate in a single enactment all the laws relating to central duties of excise". The Act is a self-contained enactment. It contains provisions for collecting the taxes which are due according to law but have not been collected and also for refunding the taxes which have been collected contrary to law, viz., Sections 11A and 11B and its allied provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und by invoking Section 72 as a separate and independent remedy when such a course is expressly barred by the provisions in the Act, viz., Rule 11 and Section 11B. For this reason, a suit for refund would also not lie. Taking any other view would amount to nullifying the provisions in Rule 11/Section 11B, which, it needs no emphasis, cannot be done. It, therefore, follows that any and every claim for refund of excise duty can be made only under and in accordance with Rule 11 or Section 11B, as the case may be, in the forums provided by the Act. No suit can be filed for refund of duty invoking Section 72 of the Contract Act. So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 - or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 - is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. (emphasis supplied) 69. There is, however, one exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the declaration of invalidity of the provision by the court. Section 72 of the Contract Act may be attracted to such a case and a claim for refund of tax on this score can be maintained with reference to Section 72. This too, however, does not mean that the taxes paid under an unconstitutional provision of law are automatically refundable under Section 72. Section 72 contains a rule of equity and once it is a rule of equity, it necessarily follows that equitable considerations are relevant in applying the said rule - an aspect which we shall deal with a little later. Thus, whether the right to refund of taxes paid under an unconstitutional provision of law is treated as a constitutional right flowing from Article 265 or as a statutory right/equitable right affirmed by Section 72 of the Contract Act, the result is the same - there is no automatic or unconditional right to refund. 70. Re : (II) : We may now consider a situation where a manufacturer pays a duty unquestioningly - or he questions the levy but fails before the original authority and keeps quiet. It may also be a case where he files an appeal, the appeal goes against him and he keeps quiet. It may also be a case where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich the duty is paid) is set aside according to law. So long as that order stands, the duty cannot be recovered back nor can any claim for its refund be entertained. But what is happening now is that the duty which has been paid under a proceeding which has become final long ago - may be an year back, ten years back or even twenty or more years back - is sought to be recovered on the ground of alleged discovery of mistake of law on the basis of a decision of a High Court or the Supreme Court. It is necessary to point out in this behalf that for filing an appeal or for adopting a remedy provided by the Act, the limitation generally prescribed is about three months (little more or less does not matter). But according to the present practice, writs and suits are being filed after lapse of a long number of years and the rule of limitation applicable in that behalf is said to be three years from the date of discovery of mistake of law : The incongruity of the situation needs no emphasis. And all this because another manufacturer or assessee has obtained a decision favourable to him. What has indeed been happening all these years is that just because one or a few of the assessees succee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral fact and, therefore, resort to civil court is open, was expressly rejected and it was affirmed that the whole activity of assessment beginning with the filing of the return and ending with the order of assessment falls within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act and no part of it can be said to constitute a collateral activity not specifically or expressly included in the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act. It was clarified that even if the authority under the Act holds erroneously, while exercising its jurisdiction and powers under the Act that a transaction is taxable, it cannot be said that the decision of the authority is without jurisdiction. We respectfully agree with the above propositions and hold that the said principles apply with equal force in the case of both the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Customs Act. Once this is so, it is un-understandable how an assessment/adjudication made under the Act levying or affirming the duty can be ignored because some years later another view of law is taken by another court in another person's case. Nor is there any provision in the Act for re-opening the concluded proceedings on the aforesaid basis.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rising from the declaration of invalidity of a provision of the Act under which duty has been paid or collected, as the basis, inasmuch as that is the only situation surviving in view of our holding on (I) and (II). In such cases, the claim for refund is maintainable by virtue of the declaration contained in Article 265 as also under Section 72 of the Contract Act as explained hereinbefore, subject to one exception: where a person approaches the High Court or Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of a provision but fails, he cannot take advantage of the declaration of unconstitutionality obtained by another person on another ground; this is for the reason that so far as he is concerned, the decision has become final and cannot be re-opened on the basis of a decision on another person's case; this is the ratio of the opinion of Hidayatullah, CJ. in Tilokchand Motichand and we respectfully agree with it. In such cases, the plaintiff may also invoke Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act for the purpose of determining the period of limitation for filing a suit. It may also be permissible to adopt a similar rule of limitation in the case of writ petitions seeking refund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o establish that he has not passed on the burden of duty to a third party and to deny the relief of refund if he is not able to establish the same, as has been done by this Court in I.T C. In this connection, it is necessary to remember that whether the burden of the duty has been passed on to a third party is a matter within the exclusive knowledge of the manufacturer. He has the relevant evidence - best evidence - in his possession. Nobody else can be reasonably called upon to prove that fact. Since the manufacturer is claiming the refund and also because the fact of passing on the burden of duty is within his special and exclusive knowledge, it is for him to allege and establish that he has not passed on the duty to a third party. This is the requirement which flows from the fact that Section 72 is an equitable provision and that it incorporates a rule of equity. This requirement flows not only because Section 72 incorporates a rule of equity but also because both the Central Excise duties and the Customs duties are indirect taxes which are supposed to be and are permitted to be passed on to the buyer. That these duties are indirect taxes, meant to be passed on, is statutorily r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax, as the case may be, is paid or is payable, the buyer may deduct so much from the contract price as will be equivalent to the decrease of tax or remitted tax, and he shall not be liable to pay, or be sued for, or in respect of, such deduction. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) apply to the following taxes, namely : (a) any duty of customs or excise on goods; (b) any tax on the sale or purchase of goods." 73. Sub-section (2), it may be noted, expressly makes the said provision applicable to duty of customs and duties of excise on goods. This fact was also recognised by the Federal Court in The Province of Madras v. M/s. Boddu Paidanna & Sons [1942 F.C.R. 90] and by this Court in R.C. Jall v. Union of India [1962 Suppl. S.C.R. 436]. In such a situation, it would be legitimate for the court to presume, until the contrary is established, that a duty of excise or a customs duty has been passed on. It is a presumption of fact which a court is entitled to draw under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is undoubtedly a rebuttable presumption but the burden of rebutting it lies upon the person who claims the refund (plaintiff/petitioner) and it is for him to allege a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o such third party it must go. But where it cannot be so done, it is better that it is retained by the State. By any standard of reasonableness, it is difficult to prefer the petitioner-plaintiff over the State. Taxes are necessary for running the State and for various public purposes and this is the view taken in all jurisdictions. It has also been emphasised by this Court In D. Cawasji wherein Mathew, J. not only pointed out the irrational and unjust consequences flowing from the holding in Bhailal Bhai and Aluminium Industries but also pointed out the adverse impact on public interest resulting from the holding that expending the taxes collected by the State is not a valid defence. (see Paras 39 and 40). This would not be a case of unjust enrichment of the State, as suggested by the petitioners- appellants. The very idea of "unjust enrichment" is inappropriate in the case of the State, which is in position of parens patrea, as held in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [1990 (1) S.C.C. 613 at 649]. And even if such a concept is tenable, even then, it should be noticed that the State is not being enriched at the expense of the petitioner-plaintiff but at someone else's expense who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to "strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life". Article 39 lays down the principles of policy to be followed by the State. It says that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing "(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; and (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment". Refunding the duty paid by a manufacturer/assessee in situations where he himself has not suffered any loss or prejudice (i.e., where he has passed on the burden to others) is no economic justice; it is the very negation of economic justice. By doing so, the State would be conferring an unearned and unjustifiable windfall upon the manufacturing community thereby contributing to concentration of wealth in a small class of persons which may not be consistent with the common good. The preamble and the aforesaid articles do demand that wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned to public resources but include all resources, natural and man-made, public and private owned" is repeatedly affirmed by this Court. [See Ranganatha Reddy, Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal [1983 (1) S.C.R. 1000] and State of Tamil Nadu etc. etc. v. L. Abu Kavur Bai & Ors. etc. [1984 (1) S.C.R. 725]. We are of the considered opinion that Sri Parasaran is right in saying that the philosophy and the core values of our Constitution must be kept in mind while understanding and applying the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 72 of the Contract Act (containing as it does an equitable principle) - for that matter, in construing any other provision of the Constitution and the laws. Accordingly, we hold that even looked at from the constitutional angle, the right to refund of tax paid under an unconstitutional provision of law is not an absolute or an unconditional right. Similar is the position even if Article 265 can be invoked - we have held, it cannot be - for claiming refund of taxes collected by misinterpretation or misapplication of a provision of law, rules, notifications or regulation." (emphasis supplied) 11 To our mind, with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the declaration of invalidity of the provision by the court. Section 72 of the Contract Act may be attracted to such a case and a claim for refund of tax on this score can be maintained with reference to Section 72. This too, however, does not mean that the taxes paid under an unconstitutional provision of law are automatically refundable under Section 72. The Apex Court further cautions that the very concept of economic justice means and demands that unless the claimant (for refund) establishes that he has not passed on the burden of the duty/tax to others, he has no just claim for refund. It would be a parody of economic justice to refund the duty to a claimant who has already collected the said amount from his buyers. The refund should really be made to the persons who have actually borne its burden - that would be economic justice. Conferring an unwarranted and unmerited monetary benefit upon an individual is the very anti- thesis of the concept of economic justice and the principles underlying Articles 38 and 39. 2) To the second query, whether it is open to an assessee to claim refund of tax paid by him under orders which have become final - or to reopen the orders which ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng advantage of the decision in another assessee's case. All claims for refund ought to be, and ought to have been, filed only under and in accordance with Rule 11/Section 11B and under no other provision and in no other forum. An assessee must succeed or fail in his own proceedings and the finality of the proceedings in his own case cannot be ignored and refund ordered in his favour just because in another assessee's case, a similar point is decided in favour of the manufacturer/assessee. (See the pertinent observations of Hidayatullah, CJ. in Tilokchand Motichand extracted in Para 37). The Apex Court then states that the decisions of the Apex Court saying to the contrary must be held to have been decided wrongly and are accordingly overruled herewith. 3) To the third question formulated by the Apex Court whether equitable considerations have no place in situations where Section 72 of the Contract Act is applicable; the Apex Court itself emphatically states that in view of what has been held by the Apex Court with respect to the questions posed at (1) and (2) ( which is at paragraph 67 of its decision), the only situation surviving is the situation arising from the declaration o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of fact which a court is entitled to draw under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is undoubtedly a rebuttable presumption but the burden of rebutting it lies upon the person who claims the refund (plaintiff/petitioner) and it is for him to allege and establish that as a fact he has not passed on the duty and, therefore, equity demands that his claim for refund be allowed. This is the position de hors 1991 (Amendment) Act - and as the Apex Court point out later, the said Amendment Act has done no more than to give statutory recognition to the above concepts. The Apex Court emphasizes that this is the position whether the refund is claimed by way of a suit or by way of a writ petition and further observes "It needs to be stated and stated in clear terms that the claim for refund by a person who has passed on the burden of tax to another has nothing to commend itself; not law, not equity and certainly not a shred of justice or morality. In the case of a writ petition under Article 226, it may be noted, there is an additional factor : the power under Article 226 is a discretionary one and will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice. This factor too oblige....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....retained by the State. The Supreme Court held that by any standard of reasonableness, it is difficult to prefer the petitioner-plaintiff over the State; Taxes are necessary for running the State and for various public purposes and this is the view taken in all jurisdictions. The Apex Court therefore went on to hold that even looked at from the constitutional angle, the right to refund of tax paid under an unconstitutional provision of law is not an absolute or an unconditional right. The Apex Court also held that similar is the position even if Article 265 can be invoked for claiming refund of taxes collected by misinterpretation or misapplication of a provision of law, rules, notifications or regulation and hastened to add that they have held that Article 265 cannot be invoked for claiming refund of taxes collected by misinterpretation or misapplication of a provision of law, rules, notifications or regulation. 12 In Sum, when the Apex Court, sitting in a combination of nine, has categorically held that in the case of mis-interpreting or mis-applying any of the rules, regulations or notifications issued under the Central Excise or Customs Enactments, such a claim has necessarily ....