https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382802 Service tax could not be recovered a second time from an input service recipient where the tax had already been collected from the provider, and the recipient was not shown to have abetted or been complicit in the provider's default. The stated principle is that, under the Act and Rules, no authority exists to demand tax again from the receiver in a bona fide transaction, and Board guidance supported restraint in pursuing recovery from the consignee or receiver. The position was also treated as consistent with Article 265, which bars collection of tax without authority of law. On that basis, the refund was not liable to be denied and the amount deposited was refundable with interest under the rules. en-us Mon, 20 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:13:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382802 Service tax could not be recovered a second time from an input service recipient where the tax had already been collected from the provider, and the recipient was not shown to have abetted or been complicit in the provider's default. The stated principle is that, under the Act and Rules, no authority exists to demand tax again from the receiver in a bona fide transaction, and Board guidance supported restraint in pursuing recovery from the consignee or receiver. The position was also treated as consistent with Article 265, which bars collection of tax without authority of law. On that basis, the refund was not liable to be denied and the amount deposited was refundable with interest under the rules. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 20 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382802