Page 100 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

186 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
[Order]. - This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SVTAX-
HYC-APP-050-18-19 (APP-I), dated 21-1-2019.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The appellant herein had
filed a refund claim before the Dy. Commissioner of Customs who, by the Order-
in-Original No. 51/2018 (R), dated 18-9-2018, sanctioned it partly and rejected it
to the tune of Rs. 7,07,894/- on the ground that the same is hit by time bar. Ag-
grieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority who, rejected the
appeal and upheld the order of the original authority. Hence this appeal.
3. The brief facts of the refund claim narrated in the Order-in-Original
were as follows :
(a) On 16-10-2017, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 7,73,803/- (Rs.
7,65,785/- + Rs. 8,018/-) to discharge their Service Tax liability for
the return period of April, 2017 to June, 2017 and it is the last return
of Service Tax regime.
(b) Later it has come to the knowledge of the assessee that there is a
balance amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- lying in their cash account which
was already paid on 17-5-2016 vide Challan No. 00178/17-5-2016.
They have discharged total tax liability and filed all ST-3 returns up
to the period of March, 2017 (i.e., up to 2016-17).
(c) The assessee has discharged Service Tax liability of Rs. 7,92,106/-
for the return period of April, 2017 to June, 2017 by utilizing the
available cash balance of Rs. 15,00,000/- and filed the ST-3 return.
After discharging the said liability the assessee is still having a bal-
ance of unutilized amount of Rs. 7,07,894/- in their cash account.
(d) Hence the assessee has applied for refund of unutilized balance
amount of Rs. 7,07,894/- and for an amount of Rs. 7,73,803/- which
were paid vide Challan Nos. 50020, dated 16-10-2017 and 50022,
dated 16-10-2017.
4. Of the total refund claim for an amount of Rs. 14,81,697/- an amount
of Rs. 7,07,894/-, being the amount deposited by them through challans but
which has not been utilized by them, has been rejected, as the application for re-
fund was filed beyond one year from the date of such deposit. In their appeal
before the first appellate authority the appellant claimed that they had paid Ser-
vice Tax twice on the same amount and hence they were entitled to refund of the
same. The first appellate authority in the impugned order held “Therefore, ap-
pellant’s claim in this appeal seeking remedy on the ground that they were enti-
tled to refund of the amount paid for the second time on 3-4-2017 under Challan
No. 10426, being unaware of the earlier payment of Service Tax made on 17-5-
2016, is a new plea which has no basis in the impugned order. In consequence,
the instant appeal filed by them cannot be considered to have been made in rela-
tion to the claim of refund made before the original authority and which has
been rejected by him.” Thus, wholly the first appellate authority rejected the ap-
peal.
5. Learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the amount which
they have claimed as refund pertains to the unutilized amount of Service Tax
which has been deposited by them through a challan but which has not been uti-
lized towards payment of Service Tax in their ST-3 returns as has been recorded
correctly by the original authority. He would submit that their application for
refund was rejected on the ground that refund claim was filed beyond one year
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  100