2019 (3) TMI 1725 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - revision of bills downwards - refund claim rejected observing that there was no note or remark was made on the bill regarding revision of bill in respect of amount and no date of revision was recorded on the bill - HELD THAT - The refund claim has been rejected arbitrarily and there being no adverse material on record or any finding of any mis-statement. I find that it is clear cut case of clerical mistake on the part of appellant while issuing their second/revised bill which was raised after the negotiation with the service receiver. Further it is admitted fact that the refund claim was already filed within limitation period. Accordingly the appellant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 6, 21, 354/- with interest. The appellant shall be entitled to refund of the said amount with interest within a period of 60 days from the date from receipt of a copy of this order along with interest as per rules - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial

Analysis:
The appeal centered around the denial of the appellant's refund claim. The appellant, a service provider, had agreed to provide 'Manpower Services' to a client and raised a bill for the same. Subsequently, a revised bill was issued due to a disagreement between the parties. The appellant claimed a refund for the excess service tax paid due to the revision. However, the department rejected the claim citing discrepancies in the revised bill and lack of evidence regarding the burden of tax. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, including the application of unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that there was no collusion, and the client had not paid the disputed amount or taken credit for it. Certificates from the client and a Chartered Accountant were submitted to support this claim.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that the denial of the refund claim was arbitrary. It noted that there was no adverse material or evidence of misstatement on record. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection was due to a clerical mistake by the appellant in issuing the revised bill post-negotiation with the client. It acknowledged that the refund claim was filed within the limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the refund of the excess service tax paid, amounting to Rs. 6,21,354, along with interest.

In the final decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It directed the appellant to receive the refund amount with interest within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order, in accordance with the rules.