Skip to main content

Excess Service Tax paid by mistake can’t be refunded under Finance Act, 1994

In Service Tax APPEAL No. 31055 of 2018, Oil India Limited vs Commissioner of Central Tax, the appellant is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oil and natural gas. During the relevant period, they availed services of M/s B.J. Services in relation to drilling of exploratory in respect of which, the latter discharged appropriate service tax to the department. However, on the same services, the appellant also paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism to the extent of Rs.20,43,584/- under various challans. On realizing that the service tax was paid wrongfully, the appellants claimed refund of the same from the department. 

The claim was rejected by the department as being time barred. 

The Tribunal noted that the refund application was filed beyond a period of one year. It was further noticed that the refund jurisdiction of the Officers of Central Excise and Service Tax emanates from Section 12E and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Officers have no jurisdiction to decide matters which fall beyond the scope of the law itself. In such cases, the appropriate legal remedy as held by Hon’ble Apex Court is Civil Suit under Section 72 of the Contract Act and the Officers have no jurisdiction to decide on such Civil Suits.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal is rejected as a refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act,1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not maintainable for any amount paid beyond the scope of the Finance Act, 1994 itself but the appellant is free to pursue other remedies as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited (supra) to recover the amount wrongly paid by them beyond the scope of Finance Act, 1994.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more