2023 (3) TMI 237 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim for refund of service tax filed by the appellant - excess payment of service tax not in dispute - reverse charge mechanism - time limitation - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly and admittedly appellant has paid certain amounts under reverse charge mechanism by making self assessment of service tax payable under the reverse charge mechanism, on the basis of the “Trade License Agreement” entered into with their principals at Thailand for the use of their trade name/ brand name. Subsequently the value of the taxable service got revised downwards as after negotiations the period of the agreement was revised and also the consideration to be paid. Accordingly the principals issued the credit note on 31.08.2017 for the period 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017 and revised invoice 20.10.2017 for the period 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017. For the period 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 appellant had filed the return as prescribed under ST-3 format on 14.08.2017. The present claim for the refund of excess service tax paid has been made by the appellant on 03.04.2018. Appellant submit that as per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, Government cannot retain the excess of tax paid and the same needs to be refunded.

Admittedly no revised return as provided for in terms of Rule 7B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 or under provisions of the Section 142 (9) of the CGST Act has been filed by the appellant. In para 4.6 and 4.7 of the order in original, Assistant Commissioner has recorded specific finding to this effect and impugned order upholds the same in para 11 and 12. It is settled provision in law that the when the statute provides a manner of doing the thing, then the thing has to be done in the prescribed manner only and all other manner are necessarily barred.

Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The issue of unjust enrichment comes into picture only if the refund is otherwise found admissible. In the case under consideration if the refund is not found admissible, application of the principles of unjust enrichment need not be considered.

Appeal dismissed.