TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter ending 31.12.2012 - As far as the authenticity of these ST-3 returns filed for the period 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 is concerned, the appellant has submitted that they had filed the returns electronically through ACES on 20.10.2013, which was rejected. A copy of the ST3 returns downloaded from the system was submitted along with the refund claim. It is seen that the figures of gross receipt, tax payable and tax deposited as shown in the ST3 returns tallies with the refund application, along with all other details. It is also noted that the difference in the registration number of the appellant has been explained satisfactorily by the learned counsel. Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT:- Rajasthan Housing Board has also deducted the servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide his order in appeal No. 291-293/AK/ST/JPR/2016 dated 28.07.2016 rejected the appeal. 4. Aggrieved with above order in appeal rejecting the refund claim for Rs. 1,88,463/-, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that they had constructed multi stories buildings as per work orders (No. 100 dated 20.04.2022) given by Rajasthan Housing Board, which is taxable service under the category of works contract service . The total amount received against such construction during the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2012 was Rs. 86,63,344/- which is as per Form No. 16A and is inclusive of VAT of Rs. 1,29,970/-. The work involves both goods and services as is evident from copies of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,89,471/- (h) Excess tax deposited 1,88,463/- 7. In view of above, the appellant applied for refund of Rs. 5,46,865/- on 29.05.2014 and submitted copy of work order, TDS certificate, VAT-41, certificate of deduction of service tax by RHB, and the copy of challan evidencing deposit of above tax. The learned counsel stated that the factum of excess deposit of as well as receipt of gross value against services during the above period is not in dispute. 8. As far as non-filing of ST-3 return for the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 is concerned, learned counsel submitted that they have filed the return electronically through ACES on 20.10.2013. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E2813RST001/002 were indicated. 9. Learned authorized representative for the revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the authorized representative. 11. We find that this is a case of refund of excess duty paid by the appellant while providing works contract services to the Rajasthan Housing Board at various locations. We note that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the amount claimed as refund is not substantiated. Further, he also held that the said refund claim was hit by the clause of unjust enrichment. 12. We have perused the copy of wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
