Comm Of Central Excise And Service Tax And Customs Rohtak Now Comm Of Goods And Service Tax Rohtak vs. M/S Registrar Guru Jambheshwar University Of Science And Technology

Held

The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) admitted that in view of instructions dated August 22, 2019, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell), the instant appeal would not be maintainable before the High Court. This is because the refund amount in dispute, ₹42,39,625/-, is below the monetary limit of ₹1 Crore stipulated in the said instructions. Consequently, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal, with the understanding that the questions of law raised would remain open. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty granted.

Facts

The respondent, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, paid service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for manpower recruitment services. The University was not liable to pay this tax due to a notification dated June 20, 2012, and consequently filed a refund claim. The adjudicating authority partially allowed the refund for tax paid within one year but denied it for tax paid beyond one year. The University appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the full refund. The Revenue then appealed to the CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal. The Revenue has now filed the present appeal before the High Court against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT.

Key Issues

1. Whether, in view of Section 11B(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the respondent is eligible for a refund of service tax and interest paid within one year of filing the refund claim? 2. Whether the respondent is eligible for a refund of service tax paid on or after September 12, 2014, only? 3. Whether the service tax paid before September 12, 2014, is time-barred and not refundable under Section 11B(f) of the Central Excise Act? 4. Whether the CESTAT was correct in passing an order without discussing all the facts presented before it? 5. Whether to avail a benefit under the law, a party must adhere to the procedure and time limits laid down by that law, specifically Section 11B in this case? Petitioner's arguments (Revenue): The Revenue argued that the refund is limited to service tax paid within one year of filing the claim, as per Section 11B(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They contended that service tax paid before September 12, 2014, is time-barred and thus not refundable. They also questioned the CESTAT's order for not discussing all facts and the respondent's adherence to procedural time limits. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued for eligibility for the full refund, implying that the time bar under Section 11B should not apply or that the notification exempts them from the tax liability altogether. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondent.