Refund of Duplicate Service Tax Payment Allowed | HC

Case Details: Executive Engineer, Transmission System, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. vs. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (2026) 40 Centax 35 (P&H.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sanjeev Prakash Sharma & Jagmohan Bansal, JJ.
  • Shri Ajay Jagga, Advocate, for the Appellant.
  • S/Shri Sunish Bindlish, Sr. Standing Counsel with Viney Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant deposited Service Tax on certain services. It was subsequently discovered that the same Service Tax had already been deposited by the service provider, resulting in the tax being paid twice. The duplicate deposit occurred because an officer of the appellant deposited the amount without verifying whether the service provider had already discharged the tax liability. Upon learning of the duplicate payment from the service provider, the appellant filed a refund application within 30 days. The refund claim was rejected on the grounds of limitation. The matter was carried in appeal before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that where Service Tax had been deposited twice, once by the service provider and again by the appellant, the limitation for claiming a refund would commence from the date on which the appellant acquired knowledge of the erroneous deposit and not from the date of deposit. Since the appellant filed the refund application within 30 days of acquiring such knowledge, the claim could not be rejected as time-barred. The Court further held that the service provider had not filed any refund claim and that the amount could not be passed on since the appellant itself had deposited the amount into the State exchequer. The refund was accordingly allowed along with interest.

List of Cases Cited

• • 3E Infotech v. CESTAT — 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 410 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 7]
  • Agra Beverages Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 1988 (34) E.L.T. 465 (All.) — Referred [Para 8]
  • Assistant Collector v. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. — 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 8]
  • Bellatrix Consultancy Services v. Commissioner — 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 59 (Kar.) = (2022) 1 Centax 19 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 7]
  • Commissioner v. K.V.R. Construction — 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 7]
  • K.V.R. Constructions v. Commissioner — 2010 (17) S.T.R. 6 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 7]
  • M.G.M. International Exports Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner — 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 565 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 8]
  • Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 8, 17]
  • Parijat Construction v. Commissioner — 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 8 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 7]
  • Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner — 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 355 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 8]
  • Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (321) E.L.T. 434 (P & H) — Referred [Para 8]
  • Southern Surface Finishers v. Assistant Commissioner — 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 202 (Ker.) — Referred [Para 8]
  • Tripura Cricket Association v. Union of India — 2023 (70) G.S.T.L. 259 (Tripura) = (2023) 2 Centax 147 (Tripura) — Referred [Para 7]
  • Veer Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 59 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 8]

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Executive Engineer v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 62242/2018, dated 17-4-2018 by CESTAT Chandigarh — Reversed [Paras 1, 5]