2025 (12) TMI 1552

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection of refund to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 13.05.2019. 2. The facts which led to the issue of impugned order is as follows :- (i) The appellant provides market place service on which it paid service tax. This service is in the form of an online portal to which vendors can subscribe after paying a subscription fees. Several packages are offered to the clients by the appellant. The appellant would collected the full fee at the beginning as per the subscription package. Sometimes, the client wishes to change the package, say from an annual package to a three year package. In such cases, the appellant would collect the full value of the new package from the client and return proportionate amount fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax paid by him, if the assessee - (a) has refunded the payment or part thereof, so received for the service provided to the person from whom it was received; or (b) has issued a credit note for the value of the service not so provided to the person to whom such an invoice had been issued. (iii) However, from January 2017 service tax was abolished and it was replaced by GST and therefore there was no scope to take credit of service tax paid. The appellant filed refund claim of the excess service tax paid during July 2017 to December 2017 on 28.01.2019. The reason for filing the refund claim was that the appellant could not follow the procedure under Rule 6 (3) of ST Rules because the service tax law no longer exist....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise Act. Section 11B provides for a limitation of one year for filing the refund claim. Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act, does not override the limitation under section 11B. Therefore, the denial of refund of service tax paid was correct and proper and calls for no interference. 4. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative for Revenue and perused the records. 5. There is no dispute that the appellant had received consideration for services on which it paid service tax but some portion of the service could not be delivered and accordingly the service charges were returned to the client. Had the service tax provisions been in place, the appellant would have be....