SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1563

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Binu Tamta, Judicial Member, P.V. Subba Rao, Technical Member
Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
SERVICE TAX MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 50799 OF 2022 | SERVICE TAX MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 50305 OF 2023 | SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50021 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashank Yadav
For the Respondents: B.L. Narasimhan, Shagun Arora

Under Section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, service providers are entitled to cash refunds for service tax paid under previous laws if the services were not provided, which includes the unexpired period of cancelled insurance policies.

Headnote:(A) Service Tax - Refund of Tax - Cancellation of Insurance Policies - The provision of service in insurance is rendered over the period of the policy; therefore, if a policy is cancelled and the balance premium is refunded, the service is deemed not provided for the remaining period, entitling the provider to a refund of the corresponding service tax. (Para 7)

(B) CGST Act, 2017 - Transitional Provisions - Section 142(5) - Claims filed after the appointed day for refund of tax paid under existing law for services not provided shall be disposed of in accordance with the existing law and the amount shall be paid in cash. (Para 2, 3, 7)

Issues: Whether the respondent is entitled to a cash refund of service tax for cancelled insurance policies under Section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.

P.V. SUBBA RAO

1. Revenue has filed this appeal to assail the order dated 30.09.20191impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he modified the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and sanctioned refund of Rs. 5,64,15,669/- to M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited2respondent

2. The facts which led to the issue of impugned order are that respondent is a public sector company engaged in insurance and re-insurance services. Policies were issued for periods varying from one to three years. The respondent collected the premia at the time of issuing the policies along with service tax and it also paid service tax. However, some policy holders cancelled their policies in the middle and the respondent refunded their premia for the remaining period along with the service tax.

2. As per Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, if, after collecting an amount for rendering the service along with service tax, the service is not rendered in whole or part and the amount is refunded to the service recipient, the service provider could take credit of the service tax that was refunded. It could be utilized to pay service tax subsequently. No application for refund, etc. was required and the service provider could take credit on its own. From July, 2017, the Finance Act, 1994 was superseded by the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 20173CGST Act, 2017 Therefore, there was no service tax after 2017. In this case, the respondent had issued some policies and paid service tax before 2017 and thereafter some of these policies were cancelled between July 2017 and March 2018. The respondent refunded the premia with service tax to the policy holders. The respondent could not take credit of the service tax paid to the extent the policies were cancelled. Therefore, it filed a refund application under section 142 (5) of the CGST Act, 2017 for refund of Rs. 5,64,15,669/-. This section reads as follows :-

“Section 142. Miscellaneous transitional provisions.-

(5) Every claim filed by a person after the appointed day for refund of tax paid under the existing law in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944”.

3. Section 142 is a transitional provision which dealt with cases under the provisions of the previous Acts which have to be handled after the introduction of the CGST Act. As per this section, any claims for refund under the previous Act shall be processed as per the provisions of the previous Act and notwithstanding anything contained in the previous Act, the amount shall be refunded in cash.

4. The Assistant Commissioner passed his order-in-original dated 19.03.2019 rejecting the refund. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned the refund.

5. Revenue has filed this appeal before us on the following grounds :-

“(i) Section 142 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not applicable in this case as the services has already been provided by the party by way of issuance of insurance policies to various customers seeking insurance in resp0ect of which insurance premium was received along with applicable service tax and said service tax deposited to the Government’s exchequer and subsequent cancellation of insurance policies, few in full and few partial. As the service is complete once Insurance Premium along with service tax on insurance policy is charged and service tax is deposited with government exchequer.

Section 142 (5) of Central GST Act, 2017 : Every claim filed by a person after the appointed day for refund of tax paid under the existing law in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top