https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365142 The High Court quashed the Assistant Commissioner's order citing unjust enrichment and directed a reconsideration of the refund claim. The court allowed CPWD to join as a co-applicant for the refund, ordered the release of adjusted amounts from the petitioner's bills and security deposit with interest, and prohibited CPWD from recovering the service tax from the petitioner's other contracts. The judgment clarified the rightful claimant for the refund, protected the petitioner's financial interests, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction based on the cause of action occurring within its territory. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365142 The High Court quashed the Assistant Commissioner's order citing unjust enrichment and directed a reconsideration of the refund claim. The court allowed CPWD to join as a co-applicant for the refund, ordered the release of adjusted amounts from the petitioner's bills and security deposit with interest, and prohibited CPWD from recovering the service tax from the petitioner's other contracts. The judgment clarified the rightful claimant for the refund, protected the petitioner's financial interests, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction based on the cause of action occurring within its territory. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365142