Case Law Details
Suraj Forwarders & Shipping Agencies Vs Principal Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai)
The facts narrated as above establishes that service tax has been paid twice by the appellant for the very same taxable value. Though the department agrees that the earlier payment made by challan dated 05.01.2015 on the service tax registration number of the Tirupur Commissionerate is incorrect, they have neither adjusted the amount nor refunded the amount.
The department has directed to pay the tax again as their inhouse formalities does not allow adjustment of tax wrongly paid towards one Commissionerate to another. The appellant has again paid service tax mentioning the service tax registration of Ahmedabad Commissionerate on 26.09.2016. It is clear that the department has collected service tax twice from the appellant. This is not permissible under law.
he Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of 3E Infotech (supra) had occasion to analyse the similar issue and held that when service tax is paid by mistake, the claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation.
CESTST held that in this case rejection of refund on the ground of limitation cannot be justified. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
