Case Details: Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai (2026) 39 Centax 247 (Tri.-Bom)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- S/Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) & M.M. Parthiban, Member (T)
- Ms Dhruvi Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Ms S. Varalakshmi, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a co-developer-cum-Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit, provided taxable services to an SEZ developer for authorised operations. Service tax was initially paid on such services and was subsequently claimed as a refund under the notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance under the Finance Act, 1994. The refund was denied on the grounds of non-filing of Forms A1 and A2 and non-compliance with the conditions prescribed under the service tax exemption notifications. The matter was placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, by virtue of its non obstante clause, clearly exempts taxable services provided to a developer or unit for carrying on authorised operations in an SEZ. The Tribunal observed that the statutory exemption under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, could not be curtailed by the procedural requirements prescribed under the service tax exemption notifications. It held that the refund of service tax paid on services rendered to an SEZ could not be denied on the ground of non-filing of Forms A1 and A2 or any other conditions prescribed under such notifications. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed.
List of Cases Cited
-
- Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 4, 9.3]
- Commissioner v. Eclerx Services Ltd. — 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 4 (S.C.) = (2023) 4 Centax 96 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 3.3, 11.2, 12]
- Cummins Turbo Technology v. Commissioner — (2023) 12 Centax 334 (Tri.-Del) — Relied on [Paras 3.3, 10]
- Eclerx Services Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 99 (Tribunal) = (2023) 4 Centax 89 (Tri.-Bom) — Relied on [Paras 3.3, 11.1, 11.2]
- GMR Aerospace Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India — 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 596 (A.P.) — Relied on [Paras 3.3, 9.1, 9.2]
- Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills — Relied on [Para 9.3]
- Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors — 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 9.3]
- Union of India v. GMR Aerospace Engineering Ltd. — (2023) 6 Centax 155 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 3.3, 9.2]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
-
- C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 354/148/2009-TRU, dated 16-7-2009 [Para 3.3]
- C.B.E. & C. D.O. F.No. 334/3/2011-TRU, dated 28-2-2011 (Extracts) [Para 3.3]
List of Notifications Cited
-
- Notification No. 4/2004-ST, dated 31-3-2004 [Paras 7, 13]
- Notification No. 17/2011-S.T., dated 1-3-2011 [Paras 2.2, 13]
- Notification No. 40/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012 [Paras 2.2, 3.1, 13]
