Order Date – 03 March 2023

Parties: M/s. East West Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.E. & ST, Aurangabad

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. East West Seeds India Pvt. Ltd., had entered into contract for trademark fees with its associated enterprise East West Seed International Ltd, Thailand (EWSILT) for use of trademark w.e.f. 01.01.2017. As on 30.06.2017, the appellant had made provision and paid service tax on the same.
• Subsequently the period of the agreement got revised to 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 and the amount of fee also was reduced. Thus, the service tax paid in excess is claimed as refund.
• A show cause notice dated 09.07.2018 was issued alleging that the appellant had not filed revised ST-3 return within 45 days from the date of filing original return. Hence the refund was rejected.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is entitled to refund?

Order –

• The Tribunal held that admittedly no revised return as provided for in terms of Rule 7B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 or under provisions of the Section 142 (9) of the CGST Act has been filed by the appellant. 
• It is settled provision in law that the when the statute provides a manner of doing the thing, then the thing has to be done in the prescribed manner only and all other manner are necessarily barred. The authorities performing under the provisions of statute being creature of statute cannot relax the procedural requirements or the obligations cast by the statute.
• The Tribunal observed that the issue of unjust enrichment comes into picture only if the refund is otherwise found admissible. In the case under consideration if the refund is not found admissible, application of the principles of unjust enrichment need not be considered.