https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218851 Refund of the amount remitted into the service tax account was held admissible because the payment was not shown to have been collected from the service recipient as service tax. No service tax return had been filed treating the amount as tax paid, and the remittance was only a higher credit to the service tax account rather than a refund of tax paid on return or provisional determination. The contract placed the burden of any service tax on the appellant, and the recipient certified that no tax had been reimbursed. On these facts, the incidence of tax was not passed on, so the unjust enrichment bar did not apply. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218851 Refund of the amount remitted into the service tax account was held admissible because the payment was not shown to have been collected from the service recipient as service tax. No service tax return had been filed treating the amount as tax paid, and the remittance was only a higher credit to the service tax account rather than a refund of tax paid on return or provisional determination. The contract placed the burden of any service tax on the appellant, and the recipient certified that no tax had been reimbursed. On these facts, the incidence of tax was not passed on, so the unjust enrichment bar did not apply. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218851