Membership-consent thresholds for oppression petitions are satisfied by unchallenged voter-list consents, while unsupported forgery claims require pro...
Juridical seat versus arbitral venue determines supervisory court jurisdiction, while timely award challenges remain within the prescribed limitation ...
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 4884 
