9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed that the balance amount of Rs.1,59,339/- (i.e. Rs.3164162-Rs.3004823) was paid by them as Service Tax which was not adjusted by M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd. against the sale consideration of their new flat and the same was deposited with the government exchequer as Service Tax, for which the appellant has applied for refund. 8. I find that the Adjudicating authority has held that "the tax was paid by Shri Nagrath to builder of the flat i.e. M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd. not to the government Exchequer. There is no documentary proof available on record that M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd. have deposited the said tax to the Government Exchequer." Further, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has held that "I observe that the Service Tax was statedly paid by Shri Sumit Nagrath in 2017, to M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and later on the same was adjusted by M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd. against another unit." From the above, I find that the Service Tax amount paid by the Shri S. Nagrath has already been adjusted by M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd. against another unit. Hence no question of refund of Service Tax amount arises from the department which was paid by the appellant to M/s Jaypee Infratech Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue. 3.2 Arguing appellant for the counsel submits that:- * the refund claim has been primarily rejected on the ground of limitation holding that the claim has been made after the expiry of one year from the relevant date as per Section 11B * This issue has been settled by the various decisions of this Tribunal and High Court holding that refund claim of service tax which have been paid under mistake of law are not hit by the limitation as provided under section 11B of Central Excise Act. He placed on record two decisions i * Techno Power Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No.75530/2022 dated 16.09.2022 (Tri.-Kol.)] * M/s Bellatrix Consultancy Services [Order dated 30.06.2022 in C.E.A. No.49 of 2019 of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court] * As the issue is squarely decided by the above orders in favour of the appellant the appeal to be allowed. 3.3 Arguing for revenue learned Authorized Representative while reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned order submits that * There is no evidence available by which it can be said that this amount for which refund claim has been filed was deposited under the head service tax. * Appellant has not deposited the service tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excises and Salt Act. Whether it is Rule 11 (as it stood from time to time) or Section 11B (as it obtained before 1991 or subsequent thereto), they invariably purported to be exhaustive on the question of refund. Rule 11, as in force prior to August 6, 1977, stated that "no duties and charges which have been paid or have been adjusted....shall be refunded unless the claimant makes an application for such refund under his signature and lodges it to the proper officers within three months from the date of such payment or adjustment, as the case may be". Rule 11, as in force between August 6, 1977 and November 17, 1980 contained sub-rule (4) which expressly declared: "(4) Save as otherwise provided by or under this rule, no claim of refund of any duty shall be entertained". Section 11B, as in force prior to April, 1991 contained sub-section (4) in identical words. It said : "(4) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, no claim for refund of any duty of excise shall be entertained". Sub-section (5) was more specific and emphatic. It said : "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the provisions of this section shall also apply to a claim for refund of any amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been in serious doubt, but since it does provide such remedies, its validity was beyond challenge. To repeat - and it is necessary to do so - so long as Section 11B is constitutionally valid, it has to be followed and given effect to. We can see no reason on which the constitutionality of the said provision - or a similar provision - can be doubted. It must also be remembered that Central Excises and Salt Act is a special enactment creating new and special obligations and rights, which at the same time prescribes the procedure for levy, assessment, collection, refund and all other incidental and ancillary provisions. As pointed out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill which became the Act, the Act along with the Rules was intended to "form a complete central excise code". The idea was "to consolidate in a single enactment all the laws relating to central duties of excise". The Act is a self-contained enactment. It contains provisions for collecting the taxes which are due according to law but have not been collected and also for refunding the taxes which have been collected contrary to law, viz., Sections 11A and 11B and its allied provisions. Both provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 72 as a separate and independent remedy when such a course is expressly barred by the provisions in the Act, viz., Rule 11 and Section 11B. For this reason, a suit for refund would also not lie. Taking any other view would amount to nullifying the provisions in Rule 11/Section 11B, which, it needs no emphasis, cannot be done. It, therefore, follows that any and every claim for refund of excise duty can be made only under and in accordance with Rule 11 or Section 11B, as the case may be, in the forums provided by the Act. No suit can be filed for refund of duty invoking Section 72 of the Contract Act. So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 - or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 - is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. 69. There is, however, one exception to the above proposition, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision by the court. Section 72 of the Contract Act may be attracted to such a case and a claim for refund of tax on this score can be maintained with reference to Section 72. This too, however, does not mean that the taxes paid under an unconstitutional provision of law are automatically refundable under Section 72. Section 72 contains a rule of equity and once it is a rule of equity, it necessarily follows that equitable considerations are relevant in applying the said rule - an aspect which we shall deal with a little later. Thus, whether the right to refund of taxes paid under an unconstitutional provision of law is treated as a constitutional right flowing from Article 265 or as a statutory right/equitable right affirmed by Section 72 of the Contract Act, the result is the same - there is no automatic or unconditional right to refund. 70. Re : (II) : We may now consider a situation where a manufacturer pays a duty unquestioningly - or he questions the levy but fails before the original authority and keeps quiet. It may also be a case where he files an appeal, the appeal goes against him and he keeps quiet. It may also be a case where he files a second appeal/revision, fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to law. So long as that order stands, the duty cannot be recovered back nor can any claim for its refund be entertained. But what is happening now is that the duty which has been paid under a proceeding which has become final long ago - may be an year back, ten years back or even twenty or more years back - is sought to be recovered on the ground of alleged discovery of mistake of law on the basis of a decision of a High Court or the Supreme Court. It is necessary to point out in this behalf that for filing an appeal or for adopting a remedy provided by the Act, the limitation generally prescribed is about three months (little more or less does not matter). But according to the present practice, writs and suits are being filed after lapse of a long number of years and the rule of limitation applicable in that behalf is said to be three years from the date of discovery of mistake of law : The incongruity of the situation needs no emphasis. And all this because another manufacturer or assessee has obtained a decision favourable to him. What has indeed been happening all these years is that just because one or a few of the assessees succeed in having their interpretation or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil court is open, was expressly rejected and it was affirmed that the whole activity of assessment beginning with the filing of the return and ending with the order of assessment falls within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act and no part of it can be said to constitute a collateral activity not specifically or expressly included in the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act. It was clarified that even if the authority under the Act holds erroneously, while exercising its jurisdiction and powers under the Act that a transaction is taxable, it cannot be said that the decision of the authority is without jurisdiction. We respectfully agree with the above propositions and hold that the said principles apply with equal force in the case of both the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Customs Act. Once this is so, it is un-understandable how an assessment/adjudication made under the Act levying or affirming the duty can be ignored because some years later another view of law is taken by another court in another person's case. Nor is there any provision in the Act for re-opening the concluded proceedings on the aforesaid basis. We must reiterate that the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows:- "FORMAT ORDER Pursuant to the directions given in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) = 1996 (9) SCALE 457, the appeals/Special Leave Petitions coming up for disposal shall be disposed of in terms of one or the other of the clauses below : (1) Where a refund application was filed by the manufacturer/purchaser beyond the period prescribed by the Central Excise Act/Customs Act in that behalf, such petition must be held to be untenable in law. Even if in any appeal, suit or writ petition, direction has been given that the refund application shall be considered with reference to the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act/Customs Act - or that the period of limitation shall be taken as three years - such a direction of the Appellant Court/Civil Court/High Court shall be deemed to be unsustainable in law and such direction shall be set aside. The period prescribed by the Central Excise Act/Customs Act for filing a refund application in the case of "illegal levy" cannot be extended by any Authority or Court. ..." 4.5 Hon'ble Bombay High Court has in case of Orkay Silk Mills [1998 (98) E.L.T. 310 (Bom)] held as follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that the amount collected has no sanctity of law as the same is not a duty or a tax and accordingly the same should be returned to the party. We note such remedies provided by the High Courts and Apex Court are mainly by exercising powers under the Constitution, in writ jurisdiction. It is clear that neither the jurisdictional service tax authority nor the Tribunal has such constitutional powers for allowing refund beyond the statutory time-limit prescribed by the law. Admittedly, the amount is paid as a tax, the refund has been claimed from the jurisdictional tax authorities and necessarily such tax authorities are bound by the law governing the collection as well as refund of any tax. There is no legal mandate to direct the tax authority to act beyond the statutory powers binding on them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) categorically held that no claim for refund of any duty shall be entertained except in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Every claim for refund of excise duty can be made only under and in accordance with Section 11B in the forms provided by the Act. The Apex Court further observed that the only exception is where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund of service tax is governed by the provision of Section 11B for period of limitation. The statutory time limit cannot be extended by any authority, held by the Apex Court." 4.7 Hon'ble Madras High Court has in case of M.G.M. International Exports Ltd. [2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 565 (Mad.)] held as follows: "20. Admittedly, collection of service tax by IMC Ltd. during the material period in dispute was contrary to law as was clarified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide its Circular dated 24-4-2002. Thus, the collection of the amount was contrary to Article 265 of Constitution of India and therefore, the amount collected ought to have been refunded back, if a refund claim was filed in time from the date of payment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 21. Thus, collection of tax by IMC Ltd. was not only contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 but also the appropriation of such amount by the service tax department contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India. However, payment of tax by IMC Ltd. and appropriation and collection by service tax department at best was on account of misconstruction of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nine-Judges in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra). Hence, by this judgment, we have clarified the position in law. 25. Though the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited few decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court and that of the Karnataka High Court, I am afraid that these decisions have either not considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 in its proper perspective or have ignored the same altogether. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Allied Photographics India (P) Ltd., 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) sealed the fate of the refund claim and put the last nail in the coffin and has thereby destroyed all the hopes of the petitioner." 4.8 Hon'ble Kerala High Court has in case of Southern Surface Finishers [2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 202 (Ker.)] held as follows: 9. The Learned Single Judge who referred the matter, rightly noticed the different views expressed, which however on the question of mistake of law and the manner in which refund has to be applied for; we have to concede to the majority view of five Learned Judges. From the above extracts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng provided specifically for refund, which provision also expressly declared that no refund shall be made except in accordance therewith, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was found to be expressly barred. It was held that once the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act, including the provisions relating to refund is beyond question, then any and every ground, including violation of principles of natural justice and infraction of fundamental principles of judicial procedure has to be urged under the provisions in the Act, obviating the necessity of a suit or a writ petition in matters relating to a refund. The only exception provided was when there was a declaration of unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Act, in which event, a refund claimed could be otherwise than under Section 11B. We, specifically, emphasise the underlined portion in paragraph 79 of the cited decision as extracted hereinabove. The earlier view that the limitation was three years from the date of discovery of mistake of law was specifically differed from, since the refund had to be under the remedy as provided in the statute, which prescribed a limitation. 11. At the risk of repetition, here, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
