Page 153 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] VASUDHA BOMMIREDDY v. ASSISTANT COMMR. OF S.T., HYDERABAD 55
(a) The claim for refund is barred by limitation.
(b) The petitioners did not furnish documents to prove that the said
service tax amount had actually been deposited with the Central
Government, i.e., a Chartered Accountant Certificate or undertaking
from the vendor of the petitioner, M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructures
Pvt. Ltd., certifying that the service tax has been deposited/credited
to Central Government or ledger copies or challans or ST-3 returns
of the vendor have not been produced by the petitioners.
(c) That the Delhi High Court in G.D. Builders v. Union of India [2013
(32) S.T.R. 673 (Del.)] had taken the view that after 46th amendment
to the Constitution, composite contracts can be bifurcated to com-
pute value of the goods sold/supplied in contracts for construction
of buildings with labour and material; that the service portion of the
composite contracts can be made subject matter of service tax; that
Aspect Doctrine is applied for bifurcating/vivisecting the composite
contract; that service tax can be levied on the services component of
any contract involving service with sale of goods etc.; that computa-
tion of service component is a matter of detail and not a matter re-
lating to validity of imposition of service tax; and that merely be-
cause no rules are framed for computation, it does not follow that
no tax is leviable.
(d) The provision mentioned and time period in the judgment relied
upon by the petitioners pertain to the period prior to 2012 i.e., be-
fore the negative list and change in valuation provisions; that the ra-
tio in that decision would not apply for the current period under
consideration as the levy is made under Section 66E of the Finance
Act, 1994 and Section 67 read with Rule 2A of the Service Tax (De-
termination of Value) Rules, 2006 [as amended by Service Tax (De-
termination of Value) (2nd amendment) Rules, 2012 w.e.f. 1-7-2012],
which prescribe a mechanism for ascertaining value in case of com-
posite contracts.
10. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
11. Heard, Sri Kailash Palagummi, Counsel representing Sri T. Bala
Mohan Reddy, Counsel for petitioners and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Counsel for re-
spondents 1 to 3.
RE : The plea of Limitation
12. As regards the first ground of bar of limitation, from the facts narrated
above, it is clear that the payment by the petitioners to the 4th respondent of the
service tax of the sale transaction dated 9-5-2014 occurred on 19-6-2014. Copy of
the receipt obtained by the petitioners from the 4th respondent is filed along with
Annexure P3 to the Writ Petition.
13. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deals with claims for re-
fund of duty and interest if any paid on such duty. Under sub-section (1) thereof,
any person claiming refund of any duty and of interest, if any paid on such duty,
may make such application for refund of duty and interest if any, paid on such
duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner
of Central Excise, before the expiry of one year from the relevant date in such
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  217