The Kerala High Court has held that the question of refund or adjustment of service tax already paid by an assessee must be kept open until the assessing authority determines whether the underlying contract is a works contract or a service contract.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed that any conclusion concerning the adjustment or refund of service tax would be premature before the nature of the contract and the corresponding tax liability are determined.

The Court partly allowed two writ appeals filed by Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited, formerly known as Pest Control India Private Limited, and vacated the Single Judge’s findings concerning the refund or adjustment of service tax already deposited by the company.

Buy Now: Service Tax E-Magazine – August 2026

The dispute centred on whether the service tax paid by the appellant could be adjusted or refunded if the assessing authority ultimately classified the transaction as a works contract liable to Value Added Tax.

The appellant had approached the High Court in proceedings relating to the tax treatment of the contract in question. The principal issue requiring examination was whether the transaction constituted a works contract or a service contract.

The Single Judge had relegated the matter to the assessing authority for verification of the contract and determination of its correct nature. The assessing authority was directed to examine the contractual terms and ascertain whether it should be treated as a works contract or a service contract.

However, while remitting the matter, the Single Judge also concluded that the service tax already paid by the assessee could neither be adjusted nor refunded.

The company challenged this part of the judgment before the Division Bench.

Appearing for the appellant, the counsel submitted that service tax and VAT operated in mutually exclusive fields and could not simultaneously be imposed on the same transaction in the manner alleged. The company further contended that if the assessing authority classified the transaction as a works contract and imposed VAT, the service tax already paid should either be adjusted against the tax liability or refunded.

The Division Bench noted that the nature and incidence of tax would become clear only after the assessing authority examined the contract. It held that the Single Judge was not required to decide the refund or adjustment issue while simultaneously remanding the classification question to the assessing authority.

“In our firm view, the aforesaid question need not have engaged the attention of the learned Single Judge, particularly when the matter had been relegated to the Assessing Authority to verify, inter alia, the contract and to ascertain whether it was a Works Contract or a Service Contract,” the Court observed.

The Bench said that the Single Judge’s conclusion against adjustment or refund was unnecessary and premature. Such a conclusion carried a speculative element because the correct tax treatment depended on the classification of the contract.

The Court explained that it was the nature of the contract that would determine which tax was leviable or payable. Therefore, a final view on the fate of the service tax already deposited could not be taken before the assessing authority completed the classification exercise.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the company and the Special Government Pleader for Taxes agreed that the question of refund or adjustment could have been left open for consideration by the appropriate authority after the assessing authority decided whether the arrangement was a works contract or a service contract.

Accepting this position, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeals and vacated the findings of the Single Judge on the question of whether the service tax already remitted by the assessee could subsequently be refunded or adjusted.

The Court clarified that the parties would be entitled to raise and pursue all questions relating to refund or adjustment after the assessing authority rendered its decision in accordance with the remand order.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Supreme Court Stays 3 Times Penalty Over Failure to Disclose Order Clarifying Higher Entry Tax Rate