CA's Certificate on Excess Payment Under Scrutiny: CESTAT Remands Service Tax Refund Claim [Read Order]
The lower authorities rejected the refund claim because the advertising agency could not prove that the extra service tax burden was not passed on to its clients
![CAs Certificate on Excess Payment Under Scrutiny: CESTAT Remands Service Tax Refund Claim [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/03/05/2127895-ca-certifcatejpg.webp "CAs Certificate on Excess Payment Under Scrutiny: CESTAT Remands Service Tax Refund Claim [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has remanded a refund dispute, directing the adjudicating authority to re‑examine the Chartered Accountant’s certification of excess service tax payment. The appeal has been filed against the rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities, and the appellant, Kailash...
In a recent ruling, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has remanded a refund dispute, directing the adjudicating authority to re‑examine the Chartered Accountant’s certification of excess service tax payment.
The appeal has been filed against the rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities, and the appellant, Kailash Advertising Agency, engaged in providing advertising services, claimed that during the FY 2014–15, it had inadvertently paid ₹1,02,040 in excess service tax by including invoices where both VAT and service tax were charged.
In addition, ₹52,905 was paid as interest for delayed payment, bringing the total refund sought to ₹1,54,945. The excess payment was supported by a Chartered Accountant’s certificate. The lower authority rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the tax burden was not passed on to any other persons, thereby attracting the bar of unjust enrichment.
The appellant requested another opportunity to submit documents to establish that the service tax incidence was borne by the company itself and not shifted to customers.
On the other hand, the revenue maintained that the appellant had not produced sufficient evidence to negate unjust enrichment.
After hearing both sides, the tribunal noted that,t in the interest of justice, the matter required remand to the adjudicating authority and held that the adjudicating authority should Provide reasonable opportunity to the appellant to furnish all relevant documents.
The bench R. Muralidhar (judicial member) ruled that the adjudicating authority decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, within three months of receiving the order.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
