TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are seeking refund of the Service Tax of ₹ 17,84,952/- which was paid during the period April to June 2017 on the ground that they have paid Service Tax and GST on the same four transactions. Further, when the Service Tax was paid on the basis of self-assessment and declaration in their ST 3 Returns for the period April to June 2017, the Service Tax was paid correctly for the services which were provided during the period April to June 2017 as per Section 68 of the Act. There is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant - decided against appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 20808 of 2019 - Final Order No.20067/2020 - Dated:- 27-1-2020 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral of Tax, Bangalore vide OIO No. 58/2018-19 (R) ND2 dated 10.01.2019 rejected the refund claim of ₹ 17,84,952/- for the reasons that the raising subsequent invoices under GST as per the request of the clients and claiming for the refund of Service Tax already paid under erstwhile Finance Act, 1994 is not under the purview of the law to consider for refund of Service Tax paid for the correctly declared invoice value in the ST 3 Returns. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) on various grounds and the Commissioner after considering the grounds raised by the appellant dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) CCE Vs Cipla Ltd., 2004 (166) ELT 421 (Tri. Mum.) Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs CC, 2001 (134) ELT 429 (Tri. Mum.) Kansal Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs CC, 2014 (300) ELT 255 (Tri. Mum.) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs CCE, 2010 (253) ELT 339 (Tri. Del.) 4.1. He further submitted that the appellant cancelled the invoices issued earlier by issuing Credit Notes and the effect of such cancellation is that the Service Tax charged earlier were nullified and the appellant had in-turn raised GST invoices/bills charging GST. He also submitted that the legal and accounting effect of cancellation of Service Tax invoices/bills and raising of Credit Notes have not been appreciated by both the authorities. 5. On the other han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were provided during the period April to June 2017 as per Section 68 of the Act. Further, I find that the appellant issued the GST invoices subsequently in the month of September and November 2017 simply at the instances of their clients. Further, I find that when the Service Tax was paid for the services rendered during the relevant period was liable to be paid. Further, I find that the Commissioner (A) in Para 10, 11 12 have given cogent reasoning for denial of the refund claim by the authorities and it is relevant to reproduce the said findings which are reproduced herein below: 10. Hence the service tax paid by the appellant as on the date of provision of services during April to June 2017 for the services rendered were his l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or the Rules made thereunder; he shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or the tax not deducted under Section 51 or short deducted or deducted but not paid to the Government or tax not collected under Section 52 or short collected or collected but not paid to the Government or input tax credit availed of or passed on or distributed irregularly, or the refund claimed fraudulently, whichever is higher. The fact of the case makes it clear that the appellant has issued subsequent four invoices on 30.9.2017, 8.11.2017, 8.11.2017 31.12.2017 without any supplies under the GST regime which in itself is violation warranting rejection of refund. The appellant has violated the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
