Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
HC ruled that Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 does not strictly apply to service tax refund claims made under mistaken legal interpretation. The court held that principles of restitution under Section 72 of Contract Act, 1872 are applicable, mandating refund even beyond prescribed limitation periods. Relying on precedential jurisprudence, the court determined that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for wrongly paid service tax. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed, compelling the respondent to refund the erroneously paid tax.
HC ruled that Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 does not strictly apply to service tax refund claims made under mistaken legal interpretation. The court held that principles of restitution under Section 72 of Contract Act, 1872 are applicable, mandating refund even beyond prescribed limitation periods. Relying on precedential jurisprudence, the court determined that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for wrongly paid service tax. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed, compelling the respondent to refund the erroneously paid tax.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
