Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
