The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), granted service tax refund on renting of immovable property services.
The appellant, Amneal Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, is a unit in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals product and is also holding service tax registration. The appellant is functional unit under Pharmez, Sarkhej Bavla National Highway, Ahmedabad and is registered with the office of the Development Commissioner, KASEZ, Ministry of Commerce, Gandhidham.
The appellant had sought refund of amount on the ground that the service tax paid on the renting of immovable property service and the rent paid for their manufacturing premises.
The department has taken a view that the rent invoices are for the rent collected by M/s. Zydus Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd for the office located at Plot No. 10 and 11 of Pharmez wherein the registered premises are at Plot No. 15,16 and 17 of Pharmez. Since the rent invoices are in name of some other premises, hence the refund cannot be allowed.
The department further stated that the declaration filed by the claimant in Form A-1 for input services are on 06.05.2011 and 20.06.2011. While the refund claim pertains to the period February, 2011 to May, 2011 and therefore, the refund of the service tax paid to the service provider prior to filing of declaration under Form A is inadmissible.
The Tribunal of CL Mahar, Technical Member noted that the department has neither tried to establish that the appellant does not exist at the given address of Plot No 15, 16 and 17 of the Pharmez and that since renting of Immovable Property is included in the approved list of taxable services issued by the Development Commissioner and therefore authorities should have sanctioned the refund claim of the same.
The Bench further observed that the second ground for rejection of the refund claim was that the declaration in Form A-1 in respect of service provider and the rejection of refund on this ground appears to be absolutely flimsy. The facts of the matter remains that there is no objection or denial of the fact that the appellant have received the service and service tax has been discharged on these services.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
