<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (2) TMI 900 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418649</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax paid under self-assessment was treated as unavailable where the assessment or self-assessment had not first been challenged in appeal. The Tribunal applied the statutory refund framework as an exclusive remedy and held that a refund authority cannot indirectly reopen an unchallenged self-assessment. It also held that the statutory limitation period governed refund claims and could not be avoided by describing the payment as mistaken. On unjust enrichment, the Tribunal found that the tax had been collected from service recipients and that the evidence relied on did not establish the appellants&#039; own entitlement to refund, rendering the claims hit by unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 900 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418649</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax paid under self-assessment was treated as unavailable where the assessment or self-assessment had not first been challenged in appeal. The Tribunal applied the statutory refund framework as an exclusive remedy and held that a refund authority cannot indirectly reopen an unchallenged self-assessment. It also held that the statutory limitation period governed refund claims and could not be avoided by describing the payment as mistaken. On unjust enrichment, the Tribunal found that the tax had been collected from service recipients and that the evidence relied on did not establish the appellants&#039; own entitlement to refund, rendering the claims hit by unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>