The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the payment of service tax under wrong registration can be adjusted against the correct registration for which the service tax is actually due.
The bench of Ms. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the service tax paid under different registration but by the same company cannot tantamount to non-payment of service tax and Revenue was given liberty to make necessary adjustment in their account if required.
The Appellant/assessee, M/s. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Sagar held Service Tax Registration for payment of Service Tax towards provision of various taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994.
The Appellant had filed an application for claiming refund of pre-deposit amount consequent upon decision of CESTAT against the two demand orders passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Jabalpur.
On scrutiny, it was observed that the challans had been deposited by a different Service Tax registrant namely Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Jabalpur (MPPKVVCL, Jabalpur) having Service Tax registration. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice No. IV(10)5/MPPKV/Refund/SGR/198 dated 28.05.2021 was issued proposing rejection of the refund claim.
Subsequently, the refund claim was rejected. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal.
The assessee contended that it had made the pre-deposit of the amount is not in dispute. The principal reason for issuance of SCN for rejection of the refund and the order confirming the rejection was that the appellant had made the pre-deposit by mentioning the wrong service tax registration number.
The tribunal while allowing the appeal held that the appellant is entitled for the refund of the pre-deposit.
Case Details
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal (M.P.)
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No.50029 Of 2023
Date: 17.04.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Rajeev Agarwal
Counsel For Respondent: Manoj Kumar
Read More: Buying/Selling Of Space In Print Media Not Subject To Service Tax: CESTAT
