Kailash Advertising Agency Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the lower authorities. The appellant was engaged in providing advertisement services to clients. During the financial year 2014–15, while filing ST-3 returns, the appellant included invoices on which both VAT and Service Tax had been paid. As a result, excess Service Tax amounting to ₹1,02,040 was paid. Additionally, interest of ₹52,905 was paid due to delayed payment of Service Tax. Consequently, the appellant filed a refund claim for a total amount of ₹1,54,945. The excess payment details were certified by a Chartered Accountant.
The lower authorities rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant failed to establish that the incidence of tax had not been passed on to another person. Therefore, the authorities held that the claim was hit by the principle of unjust enrichment.
The appellant submitted that an opportunity should be granted to produce the necessary documentary evidence to establish that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable and that the Service Tax incidence had not been passed on to clients.
The departmental representative argued that the appellant had not produced proper evidence to demonstrate that the unjust enrichment clause was not applicable.
