Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 387 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax which was not required to be paid - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Banking and Other Financial Services - illegal levy - service tax was not liable to be paid - HELD THAT:- The respondent was not liable for payment of service tax during the period from 01.01.2004 to 18.04.2006 under reverse charge mechanism on foreign remittances made by it in respect of services rendered by foreign entities. However, since the respondent had deposited the service tax along with interest for the services received during the said period, it is no doubt a fact that such amount should be considered for the benefit of refund, subject to fulfillment of the relevant statutory provisions. In the present case, the disputed amount of service tax was paid by the respondent for the period from 01.01.2004 to 18.04.2006 under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association INDIAN NATIONAL SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] have held that recipient of service in India is not liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism before 18.04.2006. The refund claim of erroneous payment of service tax will not fall outside the purview of the central excise statute. Since, the disputed amount of service tax was paid by the respondent and collected by the authorities under the Act by placing wrong interpretation of the statutory provisions, such collection or levy will be termed as ‘illegal levy’ - In such case, the refund claim arises under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to service tax matters inasmuch as such situation in contemplated by and provided in the said Act. Thus, the provisions of Section 11B ibid squarely apply to the case in hand for necessary compliance by the respondent. Since, the refund application was not filed within the stipulated time frame of one year from the relevant date, the original authority had correctly rejected such claim application. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-Revenue.
|