https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384446 The Court upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision to reject the claim for refund of service tax, citing unjust enrichment due to the burden of tax being shifted to customers without proper evidence to support exemption under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court emphasized the need for documentary evidence to substantiate refund claims and affirmed the principle of unjust enrichment in tax matters. The writ petition challenging the refund rejection was dismissed, highlighting the importance of complying with tax laws and providing adequate proof for refund entitlement. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2019 07:04:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384446 The Court upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision to reject the claim for refund of service tax, citing unjust enrichment due to the burden of tax being shifted to customers without proper evidence to support exemption under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court emphasized the need for documentary evidence to substantiate refund claims and affirmed the principle of unjust enrichment in tax matters. The writ petition challenging the refund rejection was dismissed, highlighting the importance of complying with tax laws and providing adequate proof for refund entitlement. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384446