Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
