TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the appellant is that independent residential houses were built, each having a separate entry with separate electricity and water connection and a single building did not have more than twelve residential units. It is for this reason that the appellant contends that the houses constructed by it for the Rajasthan Housing Board will not be covered by the definition of a residential complex and, therefore, would not be taxable as the contract executed with the Housing Board was not in relation to construction of a complex. Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - SHRI DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Om. P. Agarwal, Chartered Accountant for the appellant. Shri Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed by the appellant. The impugned order also holds that since the amount involved in the work orders was inclusive of service tax, the refund would be hit on merit and also because of unjust enrichment. 6. Shri Om P. Agarwal, learned consultant for the appellant has pointed out that the amount of refund was sought on two counts. Firstly, the amount of refund of Rs. 1,10,770/- was on account of the fact that service tax was deposited by mistake on independent houses constructed on or after 01.07.2012. The second issue involving an amount of Rs. 4,07,671/- is for refund of excess service tax deposited on construction of multi story building on or after 01.07.2012. 7. Regarding the first issue involving refund of service tax of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed the refund of the excess amount of tax that had been deposited by the appellant. 10. Learned consultant for the appellant pointed out that in respect of the same work order the order-in-original dated 10.04.2011 for the period 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) for the same reason as in the present case denied the refund but the Tribunal, by order dated 12.05.2023, passed in Service Tax Appeal No. 52955 of 2016 filed by the present appellant set aside the order and directed for refund and also held that the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply. 11. There is substance in this submission advanced by the learned consultant for the appellant as indeed a perusal of the order dated 12.05.2023 passed in Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has been explained satisfactorily by the learned counsel. 13. As regards the contention that the refund is hit by unjust enrichment, we find that Rajasthan Housing Board has also deducted the service tax payable by them by reverse charge mechanism in the bills raised by the appellant. Therefore, it is the appellant who has borne the incidence of tax and refund cannot be denied to any person who has borne the incidence of tax. Therefore, there is no unjust enrichment in this case . 12. The Tribunal, ultimately in the decision dated 27.02.2023, held as follows :- 15. The contention of the appellant is that independent residential houses were built, each having a separate entry with separate electricity and water connection an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
