Classic Construction Company Versus Commissioner, GST, Panchkula
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1405 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 444 (Tri. Chan.)
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 12-10-2018
Appeal No. ST\/60551\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 63351\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
\nFor The Appellant : Shri Vikash Bansal, CA
\nFor The Respondent : Shri M.S.Dhindsa, AR
\nORDER
\nPER: ASHOK JINDAL
\nThe appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).
\n2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a contractor providing construction services to Housing Board Haryana (HBH). The Housing Board Haryana deducted service tax from the r<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Gurugram, therefore, the refund claim is required to be filed there. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim refund from the Panchkula office. Against this order, the appellant is before me. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ionerate, then the appellant is having jurisdiction to file refund with the Panchkula Commissionerate. Therefore, they have rightly filed refund claim before the Panchkula Commissionerate. Further, I find that the appellant has produced certificate from the Housing Board Haryana certifying that the appellant can file refund of service tax paid by Housing Board Haryana and the service tax borne by the appellant. In that circumstance, I hold that the appellant is entitled to file refund claim before the Panchkula Commissionerate. Therefore, the concerned officer of Panchkula Commissionerate is directed to sanction the refund claim to the appellant within 30 days of receipt of this order. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Classic Construction Company Versus Commissioner, GST, PanchkulaService Tax2019 (2) TMI 1405 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 444 (Tri. Chan.)CESTAT CHANDIGARH – ATDated:- 12-10-2018Appeal No. ST\/60551\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 63351\/2018Service TaxMr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For The Appellant : Shri Vikash Bansal, CA For The Respondent : Shri M.S.Dhindsa, AR … Continue reading “Classic Construction Company Versus Commissioner, GST, 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-16998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16998","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=16998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16998\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on account of rejection of refund claim by either of the Gurugram Commissionerate and Panchkula Commissionerate as they have filed refund claim under the jurisdiction of Panchkula, the same cannot be rejected by the Commissioner (appeals) as the service tax has been paid by the Housing Board Haryana and not by the appellant. The Housing Board Haryana deducted service tax from the running bills of the appellant and they have borne the service tax themselves, therefore, they are entitl<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
\n(dictate<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n