Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (6) TMI 978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....holding rejection of refund claim of the service tax paid by the Appellant despite the fact that they had also paid Goods and Service Tax (GST) on the very same transaction which had resulted in payment of tax twice-over in respect of the very same transaction? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the claim for refund of service tax when it was an undisputed fact that the service tax invoices were subsequently cancelled by issuing credit notes to the customers which had the effect that payment of service tax on such cancelled invoices were not required as per law and hence there was no liability to pay service tax on cancelled tax invoices? c) Whether the Order of the Hon'ble ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued credit notes to those customers and raised fresh Invoices under the provisions of GST, on 30.09.2017, 08.11.2017 and 31.12.2017 for a sum of Rs.21,41,944/- and paid the said amount. Thereafter, appellant filed an application seeking refund of the service tax of Rs.17,84,952/-. A show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant as to why the refund claim should not be rejected. Appellant submitted its explanation leading to Order-in-Original dated 10.01.2019 rejecting the said claim. The appeal filed thereon before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) also stood rejected vide order dated 16.07.2019. A further appeal filed before the CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal), was also dismissed on 27.01.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax and subsequently GST of Rs.21,41,944/-. The Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) has recorded in para 10 of his order that the appellant was not liable to pay the GST. Yet rejected the appeal. The CESTAT, in its order, has reproduced para 10 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) and concluded its judgment by recording thus: "7. Further, I find that the case laws relied upon by the appellant cited supra are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and are distinguishable. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant." 9. We have carefully considered the auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decrees must surely follow. What the period of limitation is and whether Article 226 will apply are moot as is evident from the High Courts judgment, but we are not called upon to pronounce on either point in the view we take. Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's moneys, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. Nor is it palatable to our jurisprudence to turn down the prayer for high prerogative writs, on the negative plea of "alternative remedy", since the root principle of law married to justice, is ubi jus ibi reme....