Skip to main content

Collected Service Tax To Be Refunded By The Tax Dept. When Flat Booking Is Cancelled

Cause Title : Credence Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East, Service Tax Appeal No. 85780 of 2020, CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

Date of Judgment/Order : 05.01.2023

Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)

Citied: 

Background

The Appellant is a builder providing Construction of Residential Complex Service. Two flats in Project Central Park which were booked through/from them by a buyer, but were later cancelled by the said buyer. Upon cancellation, the appellant refunded advance amount paid by the buyer along with Service Tax amount collected by them. The Appellant subsequently filed two refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83, Finance Act, 1994 amounting to Rs.1,09,367/- and Rs.55,123/- respectively seeking refund of Service Tax paid but Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the question of refund of service tax does not arise as the appellant has not paid any excess service tax but has paid only that much which they were liable to pay for consideration received by them on the invoice issued and in such a situation there is no provision for refund of service tax. Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. Hence this appeal.

The Appellant argued that the issue regarding the cancellation of flat is considered as non provision of service as specified by Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Further in post-GST regime there is no mechanism available to claim such credits in GST returns and therefore the only remedy available with them is to claim refund of such service tax paid in excess and in the absence of any service the Appellant cannot be burdened with any Service Tax.

The Revenue Dept. reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of Appeal.

Judgment

The Tribunal held that the first principle of service tax is that tax is to be paid on those services only which are taxable under the said statute. But for that purpose there has to have some ‘service’. Unless service is there no service tax can be imposed. 

As per Rule 66E(b), Service Tax Rules, 1994 in construction service, service tax is required to be paid on amount received from buyers towards booking of flat before the issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority and the booking can be cancelled by the buyer any time before taking possession of the flat. Once the buyer cancelled the booking and the consideration for service was returned, the service contract got terminated and once it is established the no service is provided, then refund of tax for such service become admissible.

The cancellation of booking coupled with the fact of refunding the booking amount along with service tax paid would mean as if no booking was made and if that is so, then there was no service at all. If there is no service then question of paying any tax on it does not arise and the department can’t keep it with them. When no service has been provided then the assessee cannot be saddled with any such tax and in that case the amount deposited by the assessee with the exchequer will be considered as merely a ‘deposit’ and keeping of the said amount by the department is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India which specifically provides that “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.”

The authorities below are not correct in their view that mere cancellation of booking of flats does not mean that there was no service. If the booking is cancelled and the money is returned to that buyer then where is the question of any service? Once it has been held that there is no service then by any stretch ‘Point of Taxation Rules, 2011’ can’t be roped in as for the applicability of the said Rules firstly providing of any ‘service’ by the Appellant has to be established. Therefore, the authorities below were not justified in invoking the Provisions of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 for denying the refund.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more