Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
HC held that tax deposited during investigation on non-taxable services, later found exempt, cannot be retained by the Department, as there was no authority of law to levy or collect such amount. It ruled that mere deposit or description as "service tax" does not convert a non-leviable amount into valid tax. Limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and reliance on the exemption notification could not defeat the assessee's substantive right to refund, particularly after departmental acknowledgment of non-liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refund with applicable interest, preventing unjust enrichment of the Revenue.
HC held that tax deposited during investigation on non-taxable services, later found exempt, cannot be retained by the Department, as there was no authority of law to levy or collect such amount. It ruled that mere deposit or description as "service tax" does not convert a non-leviable amount into valid tax. Limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and reliance on the exemption notification could not defeat the assessee's substantive right to refund, particularly after departmental acknowledgment of non-liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refund with applicable interest, preventing unjust enrichment of the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.