M\/s Vasu Construction Company Versus Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Panchkula
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 1361 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 17-4-2018
Appeal No. ST\/60117\/2018 – A\/62238\/2018-SM[BR]
Service Tax
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
\nShri. R.R. Yadav, Consultant- for the appellant
\nShri. Vijay Gupta, AR- for the respondent
\nPer Ashok Jindal:
\nThe appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected as time barred.
\n2. The facts of the case are that the appellant provided services of construction to Haryana State Housing Board and did not pay service tax thereon. It was alleged that the appellant is providing taxable service to Haryan<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ate of Haryana & Others reported in 2016 (44) STR 195 (P&H) as held that the State Housing Board of Haryana is a Governmental authority and no service tax is payable on any service provided to them. But the appellant was not part of the said case, therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Punjab and Haryana, in the case of the appellant themselves deciding that they are not liable to pay service tax on 11.08.2016, whereas, the refund claims were filed by the appellant on 11.05.2016, which is prior to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryan. In that circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellant has filed refund claim with a delay. As in a case where is a dispute whether there is a liability of the assessee or not and the same has been settled by the higher forum, in that circumstances, the assessee's entitled to file refund claim within one year from the date when the dispute has been settled by the higher forum. Admittedly, in this case the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryan, in appellant's ow<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Vasu Construction Company Versus Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, PanchkulaService Tax2018 (5) TMI 1361 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMICESTAT CHANDIGARH – ATDated:- 17-4-2018Appeal No. ST\/60117\/2018 – A\/62238\/2018-SM[BR]Service TaxMr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. R.R. Yadav, Consultant- for the appellant Shri. Vijay Gupta, AR- for the respondent Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in … Continue reading “M\/s Vasu Construction Company Versus Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Panchkula”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11899","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11899\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the ld. Commissioner (A) has fell an error holding that the appellant was not part of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Company (Supra), in fact, the appellant was also one of the petitioner in the said case Civil Writ Petition No. 21082\/2015 and the same is the part of that order. Therefore, the rejection <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n