Case Law Details
Lancor Holdings Limited Vs The Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
There is no dispute as to the eligibility or otherwise for refund except the claim being rejected as barred by limitation. There is also no dispute that both the service provider and the service recipient having merged into a single entity, there was no service provider or service receiver. Hence, the service for which the agreement was signed could not be provided also since the same would have amounted to providing a service to the self. Further, even Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 will have no role since the same would not apply to the case of service to the self. Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, which is the charging Section, requires the levy of Service Tax on the value of services other than the services specified in the Negative List, provided or agreed to be provided, by one person to another. Subsequent to the amalgamation in this case, there remained only one person for having provided service to himself/itself.
Revenue has not alleged unjust enrichment. When the amount loses the character of Service Tax, it could only be treated as a deposit, as held in innumerable precedents, which becomes an item for adjustment in terms of Rule 6 (3) ibid., since no service could ever be provided. Thus, the provisions of Rule 6 (3) would only apply and not the provisions of Section 11B ibid.
For the above reasons, the rejection of refund is not in order and hence, the same is unsustainable and consequently, the impugned order is set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
