TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1000
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Excise Act, 1944 [CEA] as made applicable to Service Tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, both on the ground of limitation and unjust enrichment. 2. The appellant is a Government Board constituted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for housing and infrastructure development. The appellant claims that they were registered with the service tax department and had deposited service tax under bonafide mistake in respect of construction/housing projects. The refund claim was, therefore, filed on 10.06.2019 for the service tax paid in respect of construction services for the period prior to 01.07.2010 when, as per CBEC Circular 108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009, construction services by builder/developer to prospective buyers befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue, reiterated the findings of the authorities below. The submissions made are that the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act mandates that any refund application must be filed before the expiry of one year from the relevant date and since in the present case, the refund was filed much beyond the said period, the refund has been rightly rejected. In support of his argument, he referred to the decision of Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)] where the Court held that no claim for refund of any duty/tax shall be entertained, except in accordance with the statutory provisions, and every claim for refund must be made under and in accordance with Section 11B. He supported the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argument made by Shri Gurdeep Singh, Ld. Counsel for the appellant in the light of the provisions of Section 11B(1), which speaks of refund of duty/tax, we find that in the present case, the refund sought was of the amount deposited under mistake of law, which cannot be termed as tax/duty as there was no law at the relevant time which required service tax to be paid on the services of construction of housing projects. The government had no authority to collect any tax and, therefore, even if the appellant had deposited the same under the head of service tax, the same cannot be termed as service tax. The appellant is entitled to recover by virtue of the refund claim, the amount deposited under mistake of law and it has been repeatedly held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 8. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in 3E Infotech vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2018 (18) GSTL 410 (Mad.)] The issue for consideration was whether the provisions of Section 11B of the Act would be applicable to claim of refund made by an assessee when the tax has been paid under mistake of law. The Court observed that indisputably, there was no liability on the petitioner to pay service tax. 9. We find that even the Karnataka High Court in KVR Constructions vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2010 (17) S.T.R. 6 (Kar.) [11.08.2009]] and later in Heliocon Agro Chemicals vs. Union of India [(2025) (392) E.L.T. 684 (Kar.) [21.03.2025]] has also taken the view that Section 11B provides for making a claim for refund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x has not been passed on to any other person, but the appellant has already recovered the said amount from its customers, he is not entitled to claim the refund. We agree with the submissions made by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Authorised Representative relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries that no claim for refund shall be entertained except in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 11B. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned order rejecting the refund claim being hit by bar of unjust enrichment. At any rate, any amount collected as representing service tax by the appellant had to be deposited with the Central Government as per Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994. 12. Keeping in....