https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423589 Refund claims sent by speed post were treated as filed within the statutory period where the dispatch was shown to be timely and the refusal of delivery was supported by the surrounding record. The note also states that services covered by a retrospective exemption under notification no. 9/2016-ST and section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 meant the earlier service tax payment assumed the character of a revenue deposit rather than a valid levy. On that basis, refund could not be denied on limitation, and continued retention of the tax was inconsistent with Article 265. The assessee was stated to be entitled to refund with consequential interest. en-us Wed, 08 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:24:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423589 Refund claims sent by speed post were treated as filed within the statutory period where the dispatch was shown to be timely and the refusal of delivery was supported by the surrounding record. The note also states that services covered by a retrospective exemption under notification no. 9/2016-ST and section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 meant the earlier service tax payment assumed the character of a revenue deposit rather than a valid levy. On that basis, refund could not be denied on limitation, and continued retention of the tax was inconsistent with Article 265. The assessee was stated to be entitled to refund with consequential interest. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 08 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423589