TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt as mentioned above, being the amount of service tax paid by the appellant as per debit notes raised by Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited (RSMML), the owners of mines of limestone with whom appellant entered into an agreement to mine the limestone from those mines. However, the said refund claim was proposed to be rejected on following grounds: (i) It appears that the claimant had not furnished concerned documentary evidences by which it could be established that the amount of Service Tax was actually paid by Assessee to M/s RSMML. Therefore, the refund claim of Rs. 21,13,639/- appears liable to be rejected. (ii) The particulars of 21 Debit notes/ Invoices issued by M/s RSMML in favour of the claimant for collecting Service Tax have been given in the chart annexed with the refund application. On examination of the refund application and averments made by the applicant therein, it appears that the sole ground for filing the instant refund claim is that the claimant treats it as self service. However, M/s RSMMI, appeared to have charged and collected service tax from the claimant as evident from the debit notes raised by them. Thus, on primarily view, it appears that tw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appears liable to be rejected on this ground also. (viii) It appears that the claimant has not paid any service tax to the Central Government and therefore, have no locus standi to file refund claim in this regard. The claim appears liable to be rejected on this ground also. (ix) It also appears that the amount of service Tax charge by M/s RSSM Ltd Jodhpur which is recovered from the claimant & the claimant has sold the goods to buyers & the sell price must be inclusive of service Tax amount. Hence the Service Tx amount has already been recovered by the claimant from the buyers of the good & thus they are not eligible for refund as per the provision of section 12B of the central Excise Act 1944 as made applicable under section 83 of the finance act 1994. 2.2 Based on those discrepancies noticed, the above mentioned show cause notices were served upon the appellant proposing the rejection of refund claims of the amounts as mentioned above. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide above mentioned Orderin- Original. The appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the above mentioned Order-in-Appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. We h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) GSTL J7 (SC) (iv) Tripura Cricket Association Vs. UOI reported as 2023 (2) Centax 147 (Tripura) (v) S.P. Builders Vs. CCGSTCE, Jodhpur vide Final Order No. 50234-237 dated 22.02.2023 6. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has foremost reiterated the findings arrived at by both the adjudicating authorities below. It is submitted that the department countered that the appellant is a joint venture (JV) with RSMML hence both are distinct legal entities. RSMML is providing mining-related services to the appellant-JV for consideration (service charge of Rs. 125 per MT), making it a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. Learned Departmental Representative also argued that the appellant lacked standing to claim a refund since they did not pay the tax directly to the government and that part of the second claim (Rs.7,26,647/-) was time-barred under the one year limitation period. With these submissions and impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard both the sides. 8. We have observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the impugned refund claim on the following gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PORATION and thus it was held that the appellant failed to correlate the tax paid with respective returns filed by the corporation and the services availed by the appellant. 9. To check the correctness of these findings in the impugned order, we have perused the circular as relied upon by the appellant. The circular has clarified as follows: "With effect from 1st July, 2012, under the negative list approach, all services are taxable subject to the definition of the service [available in section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994], other than the services specified in the negative list [section 66D] and exemption notification [Notification No. 25/2012-ST]. According to Explanation 3(a) of the definition of service, "an unincorporated association or a body of persons, as the case may be, and a member thereof shall be treated as distinct persons". In accordance with the above explanation, JV and the member of the JV are treated as distinct persons and therefore, taxable services provided for consideration, by the JV to its members or vice versa and between the members of the JV are taxable. 3. in the context of a JV project, cash calls are capital contributions made by the member....