Page 34 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

(1) Refund of Transportation services by recipient of Gas
through Pipeline on price revision — Limitation
when service provider not paying tax on provisional
basis?

(2) Refund of Transportation services by recipient of Gas
through Pipeline on price revision — Unjust enrich-
ment whether not established in absence of
documents?

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.
Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari on 3-2-2020 after con-
doning the delay issued notice in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.
46883 of 2019 filed by National Fertilizers Limited against the Judgment and Or-
der dated 28-8-2019 of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Central Excise Appeal No.
96 of 2018 as reported in 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 38 (M.P.) (Commissioner v. National
Fertilizers Ltd.). While issuing the notice, the Supreme Court passed the following
order :
“Delay condoned.
Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted.”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in its impugned order had held that
Service Tax was paid on higher value at which service provider, M/s. GAIL
raised bills which got reduced subsequently due to downward revision in the
values. Once the service provider themselves assessed their Service Tax liability
and paid Service Tax as per statutory provisions, it is not open for the service
provider to reassess the liability having not opted for provisional assessment.
Neither the reduced value of services can be accepted nor can refund be granted
as same time-barred.
The High Court also held that documentary proof has not been provid-
ed to show that element of Service Tax sought to be refunded, has not been add-
ed in the cost of production of their product. Urea manufactured by using the
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  130