9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant has deposited services tax on such constructed houses by mistake. RHB has also deposited service tax payable by them under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) as per notification no.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, and the same was deducted by them from bills issued by the appellant. The appellant had claimed refund of both the portions of service tax deposited, on the ground that construction of such houses for EWS and LIG was exempted as per S.No.14 (c) of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and also on the ground that they had borne the incidence of above taxes. Both the lower authorities have not rejected the refund on merits. However, both the lower authorities have rejected the refund on limitation and unjust enrichment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is before this Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri O.P.Agarwal, inter alia, urges that as per the work orders, service tax, if any, was to be borne by the appellant - service provider. Further, it is categorically mentioned in the work order issued by RHB, that whatever service tax is required to be paid under RCM, the same shall also be recovered from the amount payable to the appellant /contractor. Admitted fact is that whatever amount have been paid under reverse charge mechanism by the Board, have been deducted from the bill(s) of the appellant. Further, the appellant have also paid service tax under mistake, as per their calculation. Accordingly the claim amount comprises the amount paid by the appellant through chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel further relies on the ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of KVR Construction - reported at 2010 (26) STR 195 (KAR), where it has been held that assessee was not liable to pay service tax in respect of civil structures constructed and put to use for education, religious, charitable, health, sanitation and philanthropic purposes. Further, held that the amount so paid by the assessee to revenue, was in the nature of deposit in the hands of the Government, and the provisions of section 11 B of the Central Excise Act was held to be not applicable. It was categorically held that refund under such circumstances is not hit by limitation. The said ruling of Karnataka High Court have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held by the Tribunal that no limitation is applicable for claim of refund. It was also held that such tax cannot be retained by Revenue being in conflict with Article 265 of Constitution of India. 12. Learned counsel also points out that the Commissioner (Appeals) have travelled beyond the show cause notice, by observing that Rajasthan House Board may have availed Cenvat credit of service tax, and further states that the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in observing that the appellant/assessee never challenged the self-assessment, at any point of time. 13. Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent/Department, relies on the impugned order. He further urges that the amount of Rs.27,38,062/-, which was deducted by RHB from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
