Page 76 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

314 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
tion No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 would also include “deemed sale” as de-
fined by Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution.
21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set
aside and the present appeals stand allowed. Let a signed order be placed in the
file of CEA No. 1/2013 and copy whereof be placed in the files of connected ap-
peals.
_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 314 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.
ENMAS ANDRITZ PVT. LTD.
Versus
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF S.T., CHENNAI
W.P. No. 23664 of 2017, decided on 6-9-2019
Refund - Services from non-resident service providers - Tax paid by
recipient on imported services prior to 18-4-2006/introduction of Section 66A of
Finance Act, 1994 - Supreme Court in Indian National Shipowners Association
[2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.)] upholding decision of High Court that recipient in
India liable to Service Tax for service received from abroad only after enact-
ment of Section 66A ibid - Collection of tax prior to 18-4-2006 without authori-
ty of law - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax
vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 not applicable - Assessee entitled to re-
fund with interest leviable at 6% for period post-judgment of Supreme Court -
Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. - Where collection of the tax is itself
without the authority of law, then the refund of tax collected thus, is also not bound by
the rigour of that law. The provisions of Section 11B and the rigour/procedure thereof
would not be applicable or attracted to the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner has
suo motu, complied with the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) and having done so, the peti-
tioner should not be expected to suffer on account of compliance. [2009 (13) S.T.R. 235
(Bom.), 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 12 (Mad.) relied on]. [paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
Petition allowed

CASE CITED
Commissioner v. Enmas Andritz Pvt. Ltd. — 2016 (46) S.T.R. 389 (Tribunal) — Referred ............ [Para 5]
Enmas Andritz Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT — 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 12 (Mad.) — Relied on ..................... [paras 6, 11]
Indian National Ship Owners Association v. Union of India
— 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.) — Relied on ............................................................................ [Para 2, 11]
Union of India v. Indian National Ship Owners Association
— 2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.) —Referred ................................................................................. [Paras 4, 13]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri N. Viswanathan, for the Petitioner.
Shri K. Magesh, Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to
refund a sum of Rs. 22,79,812/-. The petitioner is a service provider registered
under the category of Consulting Engineering Services. In the course of its busi-
GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  76