Page 30 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

xxviii GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
services, not leviable to Service Tax during relevant time, assessee still
needs to file refund claim within period prescribed under Section 11B
ibid since statutory authority cannot ignore specific enactments under
which refund claim is filed - Refund claim filed beyond statutory time
limit of one year, therefore rejection of Appeal justified - No infirmity in
order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Section 11B of Central Excise Act,
1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Sections 83 of Finance Act, 1994 -
— Tanna Electric Co. v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central (Tri. - Mumbai) ....... 129
— Limitation - Service Tax paid under mistake of law - If petitioners not
liable to pay ‘Service Tax’ on transaction of purchase of constructed area
along with goods apart from undivided share of land, such payment not
to amount to payment of Service Tax at all - Department also could not
have demanded payment of same - Merely because payment made by
petitioner, same not to partake character of ‘Service Tax’ and Department
cannot retain amount - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as
applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 — Vasudha
Bommireddy v. Assistant Commr. of S.T., Hyderabad (Telangana) ............... 52
— of amount collected as Service Tax without authority of law, writ
jurisdiction invocable - See under WRIT PETITION ............... 52
— of Service Tax on Port services, non-speaking order of appellate Tribunal
not sustainable - See under APPELLATE TRIBUNAL .............. 29
— Powers of Tribunal to grant refund beyond time-limit - Amount paid as
tax and refund claimed from jurisdictional tax authorities - Necessarily
such tax authorities bound by law governing collection as well as refund
of any tax - No legal mandate existing to direct tax authority to act
beyond statutory powers binding on them - Section 11B of Central Excise
Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Sections 83 of Finance Act,
1994 — Tanna Electric Co. v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central (Tri. - Mumbai) .... 129
— Rejection of - Payment of Service Tax under mistake of law - Impugned
order rejecting refund claim for Service Tax paid on transaction of
purchase of constructed area along with goods apart from undivided
share of land on the basis of decision of Delhi High Court in G.D.
Builders [2013 (32) S.T.R. 673 (Del.)] - Said decision overruled by
Supreme Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited [2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)]
specifically - Hence, impugned ground of rejection of claim, cannot be
accepted - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service
Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 — Vasudha Bommireddy v. Assistant
Commr. of S.T., Hyderabad (Telangana) ........................... 52
— Service Tax paid under mistake of law - Rejection of claim for non-
furnishing of any document to prove actual deposit of said Service Tax
amount with Central Government - HELD : Petitioner were never asked
to produce such material - Service Tax registration number of vendor
provided by petitioner - Nothing prevented Department from verifying
whether payment made on 19-6-2014, passed on by vendor to Central
Government by verifying Service Tax Returns filed by vendor - Also,
proof of payment of Service Tax by vendor collected from petitioner to
Central Government, in relation to property sold filed with writ petition -
Therefore, said ground in impugned order also cannot be accepted -
Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide
Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 — Vasudha Bommireddy v. Assistant Commr. of
S.T., Hyderabad (Telangana) ............................... 52
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  94