TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to Government, local authority or governmental authority were earlier exempted vide Entry Sl. No. 12(a) of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. With effect from 01.04.2015, the said entry was omitted vide Notification No. 06/2015-ST dated 01.03.2015. Therefore w.e.f. 01.04.2015, service tax was leviable on construction services provided to the Government, Local authority or governmental authority. 4. A new Entry Sl. No. 12(A) was inserted w.e.f. 01.03.2016, wherein the construction services provided to Government, local authority or governmental authority were exempted vide Notification No. 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 subject to condition that the contract should have been entered prior to 01.03.2015 and on which appropriate stamp duty, where applicable, has been paid prior to such date. 5. For the intervening period from 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016, vide Finance Act, 2016, Section 102 was inserted in the Finance Act, 1994. A special provision for exemption in certain cases relating to construction of Governmental buildings during the period 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016 was made under Section 102(1) in respect of contract entered into before 01.03.2015 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mahboob Ur Rehman, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent/Department and perused the case records. 10. The issue of entitlement to refund by virtue of the provisions of Clause 12A under Notification No.9/2016 dated March 1, 2016 read with Section 102 in the Finance Act 1996 with retrospective effect from April 1, 2015 is no more res-integra and has been decided in series of decisions. Reference is invited to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ranjeet Singh Chaudhary versus Union of India [2018 (15) GSTL 192 (Guj.)] where the Court noticed that the petitioner is squeezed between two Government Departments. The Service Tax Authority does not return the service tax to the petitioner apprehending that the petitioner will not return it to CPWD and will therefore be enriched unjustly. The CPWD recovered such amount from the petitioner but could not retrieve it from the Service Tax Department. In the process, the petitioner ended-up bearing the burden of service tax, which was not its liability. It was, therefore, directed as under:- "20. In the result, petition is disposed of with the following directions : (1) The order passed by the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Central Excise, Chennai-I, Commissionerate [2021 (8) TMI 240-CESTAT Chennai] *Hi-Tech Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2021(8) TMI 1214-CESTAT Chennai] *Fabworth (1) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur [2007 (213) ELT 136 (Tri.- Kolkata)] *Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. I.T.T.Ltd. [2017 (5) TMI 928-Allahabad High Court] *Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Vs. S.S. Engineers [2023 (386) ELT 192 (SC)] 13. ..............The services being rendered to MES, a Department of Ministry of Defence which is responsible for the security and safety of the nation, the requirement under Section 102(a) that services are meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession is satisfied. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in National Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineering versus CCE, Ludhiana [2011(23)STR 247 (Tri.Del)] has observed that as MES (a Department of Ministry of Defence) is not involved in any commercial activity, therefore, any service rendered to them is not taxable. The decision has been followed by the learned Single Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on dated October 17, 2016 issued by MES to All Command, CES suggesting the modalities to be followed for refund of service tax from the contractors, to the effect that the contractor will process refund cases to the Service Tax Department. While processing refund, they would intimate clearly that this amount has already been reimbursed to them from MES, (the concerned name of GE/GE/(I) AGE(I) formation to be mentioned) and that the refund be directly credited to the account of GE/GE/(I) AGE(I). In view of the peculiar situation, the appellant cannot be said to have passed on the burden of tax to any other person. We, therefore, do not find reason to justify that the principle of unjust enrichment can be applied in this case. 21. On the issue whether amount was merely a deposit and not duty, we concur with the view taken by the Tribunal in M/s. Amit Rishabh that the amount of service tax cannot be considered to be merely a deposit as Section 102 (2) makes it clear that refund shall be made of all such service tax which has been collected but which would not have been so collected had sub-section(1) been in force all material times. Further, sub-section (3) also makes it cle....