https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410071 A duplicate remittance made after a web portal failure was held not to be an "excess payment" within Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. Where the payer had already paid the correct amount and paid again only because the online receipt was not generated, the second payment was a technical duplicate rather than a voluntary overpayment. As Section 19 was confined to excess payment, the limitation period attached to that provision did not apply, and refund could not be denied on limitation grounds. The refund direction was therefore maintained. en-us Fri, 09 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410071 A duplicate remittance made after a web portal failure was held not to be an "excess payment" within Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. Where the payer had already paid the correct amount and paid again only because the online receipt was not generated, the second payment was a technical duplicate rather than a voluntary overpayment. As Section 19 was confined to excess payment, the limitation period attached to that provision did not apply, and refund could not be denied on limitation grounds. The refund direction was therefore maintained. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410071