TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax department has taken two contrary positions while allowing the substantial sum of over ₹ 1 crore as refund, for the same work, i.e. as sub-contractors in respect of hospitals, no impediment or difficulty was faced. However, in respect of the construction of residential barracks, a para military organisation of the State, an entirely different approach for the subcontractor appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RA BHAT AND MR. PRATEEK JALAN JJ. Appellant Through: Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Ms. Anushree Narain, Advocate Respondent Through: None. O R D E R C.M. Appl. No. 17373/2019 (condonation of delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 1 crore. However, the refund was refused on two grounds; (1) that the assessee was a sub-contractor as regards the barracks and consequentially (2) the principle of unjust enrichment (section 11B) would apply. The CESTAT noticed that the Commissioner had not considered the fact that to apply Section 11B, no notice or separate hearing is granted to the assessee. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... organisation of the State, an entirely different approach for the subcontractor appears to have been taken. This is completely illogical and could have been the only ground on which the CESTAT could have set aside the refusal. This court is also of the opinion that the CESTAT s view that separate show cause notice is necessary under Section 11B is in consonance with the principle of fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
