M\/s U.P. Projects Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 30 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – 2019 (370) E.L.T. 851 (Tri. – All.)
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 23-10-2018
APPEAL No. ST\/70493-70495 & 70564\/2018\u2014ST[SM] – FINAL ORDER NOs. 72465-72468\/2018
Service Tax
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nRequest for Adjournment for Appellant(s)
\nShri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Respondent(s)
\nORDER
\nPer: Archana Wadhwa
\nAll the four appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they are arising out of the same impugned order passed by the Authorities below.
\n2. As per facts on record the appellants had paid service tax, during 01.04.2015 to 01.03.2016, on 'Works Contract service' taxable under the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), provided to various departments of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, as vide Notification No.06\/2016-ST dated 01.03.2015 effective from 01.04.20<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ture or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or any business or profession; = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d claims of the appellants, on the grounds that (i) the appellants did not submit any documents to show that the conditions specified in Section 102 of the Act were satisfied, (ii) they failed to prove that they had borne the incidence of Service Tax and (iii) they had filed refund claims with the wrong jurisdiction. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d that it cannot be claimed that they had shown taxable services and value thereof and service tax paid in the ST-3 returns of the Head Office at Lucknow on account of the centralized registration. This observation of the Appellate Authority is self contradictory to the earlier observation made by him that all the taxes were paid by Head Office and reflected in their ST-3 returns as Centralized registration for such payments is not necessary. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n puty Commissioner to deal with the refund claims. The objection is on area based jurisdiction. If the Revenue was of the view that the refund claims should have been filed with the jurisdictional officer of the Head Office, they were within their rights to transfer the same to the officer having the proper jurisdiction. Adopting an analogy that if an appeal against the orders of the Lower Authorities is to be filed before Delhi Benches of the Tribunal and same stands filed before the Allahabad Benches, the normal and accepted course of action would be to transfer the appeal to Delhi in spite of rejecting the same on the point of jurisdiction. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s U.P. Projects Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, AllahabadService Tax2018 (11) TMI 30 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – 2019 (370) E.L.T. 851 (Tri. – All.)CESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 23-10-2018APPEAL No. ST\/70493-70495 & 70564\/2018\u2014ST[SM] – FINAL ORDER NOs. 72465-72468\/2018Service TaxMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Request for Adjournment for Appellant(s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh … Continue reading “M\/s U.P. Projects Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad”<\/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-14780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14780","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=14780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(b) a structure meant predominantly for use as –
\n (i) an educational establishment;
\n (ii) a clinical establishment; or
\n (iii) an art or cultural establishment;
\n(c) a residential complex predominantly meant for self-use or for the use of their employees or other persons specified in Explanation 1 to clause (44) of Section 65B of the said Act,
\nUnder which a contract entered into before the 1st day of March, 2015 and on which appropriate stamp duty, where applicable, had been before that date.
\n(2) Refund shall be made of all such service tax which has been collected but which would not have been so collected had sub-section (1) been in force at all the material times.
\n(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, an application for the claim of refund of service tax shall be made within a period of six months from the date on which the Fin<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. Aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) mainly, on the grounds that (i) they had filed the refund claims alongwith all the relevant documents, (ii) the incidence of Service Tax had been borne by them and they had not charged Service Tax from the service recipients, i.e., the departments of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, (iii) the jurisdiction of a Service Tax assessee depends on the location of the office\/premises of the service provider and (iv) thus, their refund claims were wrongly rejected.
\n8. While disposing all the said appeals, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that as the Branch Office had not shown th<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n10. I further note that the Appellate Authority has relied upon the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court's decision in the case of Vandana Travels & Tours vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), reported at 2015 (37) STR 417 (All.) wherein it was held that where an authority lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass a decree or order, the decree or order shown passed by such authority would be non-est and void ab initio.
\nThough the said decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is in respect of the basic jurisdiction to be exercised by <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n13. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matters to the Original Adjudication Authority. In case the officer feels that he does not have the jurisdiction, based upon the area, to deal with the refund claims in question, the same would be transferred to the appropriate authority for furt<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n