Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

UPDATE REGARDING REFUND OF SERVICE TAX FOR CANCELLATION OF FLAT IN GST ERA:- 136/2020-21

UPDATE REGARDING REFUND OF SERVICE TAX FOR CANCELLATION OF FLAT IN GST ERA:- 136/202
As we all know that construction of flats involve considerable time and it is possible that there is cancellation of the flat after implementation of GST regime which was booked in a project for construction of flats that started in service tax regime. The question arises is whether the prospective flat buyer cancelling the booking in GST regime will be eligible to claim refund of service tax from the department? This issue was considered recently by the Commissioner Appeals, Mumbai in the case of HARESH V KAGRANA (HUF) while passing Order in Appeal No. NA/GST/A-III/MUM/84/2020-21 dated 06.12.2019 which is the subject matter of discussion in our present update.
 
This appeal was filed by the prospective flat buyer who had cancelled his booking on 19.02.2019 and has filed refund claim on 19.08.2019 as the service tax amount was not refunded to him by the builder. The refund claim was filed under section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the flat buyer which was rejected on the grounds of limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also made applicable to service tax vide section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 by contending that the booking date was 28.12.2015 whereas the time limit for filing refund claim is 1 year from the date of payment of tax to the government. The learned Commissioner Appeals held that refund claim cannot be rejected merely on the grounds that the assessment has become final, particularly when it is clear that no service was provided to the appellant by the builder. The provision contained in section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 was minutely analysed which reads as follows:-
(5) Every claim filed by a person after the appointed day for refund of tax paid under the existing law in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 
 
The learned Commissioner Appeals concluded that the non-obstante clause is very crucial in the provision as it frees the refund claims filed under section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 from the fetters of limitation which is provided under sub-section (1) of section 11B. The only thing that is not overridden is the requirement of fulfilment of unjust enrichment clause as provided in sub-section (2) of section 11B.
 
It was further held that as no service was provided to the appellant, the service tax paid is in the nature of deposit and so the provision regarding time limit of one year is not applicable. The learned Commissioner Appeals also held that even if the payment is in the nature of service tax, the date of cancellation of flat will be considered as the relevant date for calculating the time limit of one year as the event that lead to refund of taxes is the cancellation by the buyer. In this context, reliance was placed on the decisions given in the following cases:-
 
·        CCE, PUNE VERSUS ISPAT PROFILES INDIA LTD. [2007 (220) E.L.T. 218 (TRI.-MUMBAI)]
 
·        SS AGRO INDUSTRIES VS C. CUS, AIR CARGO (EXPORT), NEW DELHI [2014 (309) E.L.T. 334 (TRI.-DEL)]
 
Therefore, it was held that refund is admissible and the appeal was allowed.
 
The above decision will be very helpful for all the service receivers who have cancelled their contracts in the GST era and have paid service tax for which they wish to obtain refund as it was held that limitation of section 11B does not apply in cases where refund claim is filed under section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is worth mentioning that we have also received favourable order in case of our client, M/s Ridhi Sidhi Developer by Final Order No. 51209-51210/2019 dated 02.08.2019 passed by Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal wherein refund of service tax on project which was subsequently closed was granted by considering the limitation to start from the cause of action for filing refund being the date when the project was abandoned. 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com