2026 (8) TMI 240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 12.02.2018 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in providing manpower recruitment and supply agency services to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner regularly collected service tax from respondent No. 3 and deposited the same with the Service Tax Department. 3. On 07.05.2015, the petitioner collected an amount of Rs. 7,15,237/-, inclusive of service tax, education cess, and higher education cess, and deposited the same with the respondent Department on 21.06.2015. 4. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 was subjected to an audit in May 2017, during which the respondent - Department raised a query regarding the non-payment of service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....afatlal Industries Limited and Ors. vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 536, learned advocate Mr. Patel has further submitted that that the amount deposited by the petitioner was in the nature of a deposit and, hence, a writ petition seeking its refund is maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be relegated to the alternative remedy before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"). It is urged that the respondents cannot deny the refund claim. 10. Opposing the writ petition, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. C.B. Gupta has submitted that the writ petition ought not to be entertained since the refund application has been filed beyond the period of one year prescribe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....brella India Staffing solution i.e., the present petitioner, is not liable to collect and pay service tax to the Government. The service tax credit taken by the assessee on the invoices issued by M/s. Umbrella is therefore ineligible." 16. Despite the audit report conclusively establishing, and the Revenue admitting, that with effect from 01.04.2015 the petitioner was not liable to collect or deposit service tax, no steps were taken by the Department to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner when it recovered the same tax from the respondent No. 3. 17. In our considered opinion, the collection of service tax from the petitioner itself became unauthorized with effect from 01.04.2015. Therefore, by accepting the tax deposited by ....