This appeal is admitted to consider the following

substantial questions of law:

a) <Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,

the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of

the Appellant thereby upholding rejection of refund

claim of the service tax paid by the Appellant despite

the fact that they had also paid Goods and Service Tax

(GST) on the very same transaction which had

resulted in payment of tax twice-over in respect of the

very same transaction?

b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,

the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the claim for

refund of service tax when it was an undisputed fact

that the service tax invoices were subsequently

cancelled by issuing credit notes to the customers

which had the effect that payment of service tax on

such cancelled invoices were not required as per law

and hence there was no liability to pay service tax on

cancelled tax invoices?

c) Whether the Order of the Hon9ble Tribunal is in

accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the

Service Tax Rules, 1994 when the parties renegotiated

3

the invoices issued under the Finance Act, 1994 and

the Appellant had issued a credit note which

annulled/cancelled the invoices issued and the denial

of refund of the stated amount would be in violation

of the Statutory Provisions?

d) Whether by operation of Section 142(3) of the CGST

Act, 2017 the amount of tax paid under Finance Act,

1994 due to renegotiation of invoice with the service

receiver and having given a credit note of the payment

made, the tax so paid should have to be refunded to

the appellant?=

2.

Heard Shri. K.S. Ravi Shankar, learned Senior

Advocate for the appellant and Shri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi,

learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

3.

Brief facts of the case are, appellant runs a

Business Management and Consultancy Service. During the

course of its business, it had raised four Invoices dated

17.04.2017, 16.06.2017 and 30.06.2017 for the period from

April to June, 2017 for payment of Service Tax of

Rs.17,84,952/- against WNS Global Services Private Limited,

Tech Mahindra, USA & Morgan Stanley Advantage Services

Pvt. Ltd. After raising the Invoices, the said amount was paid

4

by the appellant to the Government. The GST Act came into

effect from July 1, 2017. The clients in whose names the

Invoices were raised had expressed reservation to make the

payment in view of the transition from service tax to GST.

The appellant accordingly issued credit notes to those

customers and raised fresh Invoices under the provisions of

GST, on 30.09.2017, 08.11.2017 and 31.12.2017 for a sum of

Rs.21,41,944/- and paid the said amount. Thereafter,

appellant filed an application seeking refund of the service tax

of Rs.17,84,952/-. A show cause notice was issued calling

upon the appellant as to why the refund claim should not be

rejected. Appellant submitted its explanation leading to

Order-in-Original dated 10.01.2019 rejecting the said claim.

The appeal filed thereon before the Commissioner of Central

Tax (Appeals-II) also stood rejected vide order dated

16.07.2019. A further appeal filed before the CESTAT¹, was

also dismissed on 27.01.2020. Hence, this appeal.

4.

Shri. K.S. Ravi Shankar, learned Senior Advocate

submitted that:

1 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

5

• the Revenue does not dispute that appellant has

deposited the service tax of Rs.17,84,932/-;

• the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) has

recorded in para 10 of his order that appellant was not

liable to pay the GST;

• the CESTAT has rejected the appeal by a cryptic

conclusion that the case law cited by the appellant are

not applicable to the facts of the case without recording

any reasons as to why they are not applicable;

• that in Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International², it

is held that the Government and Public Authorities would

adopt practice of not relying upon technical pleas;

• In Total Environment Woodwork P. Ltd., Vs. C.C.E., C. &

S.T., B