https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392188 Refund claims for amounts paid under mistake of law are not barred by the service tax limitation period where the underlying transaction was never chargeable to service tax, and the claim was filed soon after the legal position was clarified. An objection that the petitioners failed to independently prove deposit of the collected amount with the Central Government was rejected as the record ultimately showed deposit and the revenue did not dispute it. Service tax could not be levied on the composite sale of constructed property with undivided land share because there was no workable machinery to isolate and value the service component; Rule 2A did not apply. Refund with interest followed. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 May 2025 11:42:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392188 Refund claims for amounts paid under mistake of law are not barred by the service tax limitation period where the underlying transaction was never chargeable to service tax, and the claim was filed soon after the legal position was clarified. An objection that the petitioners failed to independently prove deposit of the collected amount with the Central Government was rejected as the record ultimately showed deposit and the revenue did not dispute it. Service tax could not be levied on the composite sale of constructed property with undivided land share because there was no workable machinery to isolate and value the service component; Rule 2A did not apply. Refund with interest followed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392188