https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264325 Refund of service tax paid under Business Auxiliary Service was considered notwithstanding that the tax liability on merits had not survived. The refund was refused on the separate ground of unjust enrichment because the amounts recovered from customers were treated as cum-tax receipts, so the tax element was held to have been passed on. The bills did not separately show service tax, but that did not rebut the factual inference of pass-through, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate was found insufficient to displace it. The refund was therefore held inadmissible. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264325 Refund of service tax paid under Business Auxiliary Service was considered notwithstanding that the tax liability on merits had not survived. The refund was refused on the separate ground of unjust enrichment because the amounts recovered from customers were treated as cum-tax receipts, so the tax element was held to have been passed on. The bills did not separately show service tax, but that did not rebut the factual inference of pass-through, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate was found insufficient to displace it. The refund was therefore held inadmissible. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264325