Imported analyser diagnostic cartridges treated as accessories with analyser system, not standalone diagnostic reagents; extended limitation and penal...
Steel-timber construction shuttering/formwork tariff classification dispute: essential character held steel, classified as shuttering under Heading 73...
Family-linked property purchases using fabricated loan agreements and benami-style arrangements held to be crime proceeds; attachment upheld, appeal d...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
