https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427064 The court set aside the rejection of a refund claim for service tax on a long-term lease premium, citing compliance with Section 104 conditions. It held the limitation period at six months, not three years as argued, as the refund was a concession, not due to an unconstitutional levy. Filing with PIPDIC instead of Service Tax authorities was deemed valid due to diligence and a reasonable interpretation. The court directed the respondents to process the refund claim within four weeks, under Article 226 powers, allowing the writ petition with no costs imposed. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Mar 2023 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427064 The court set aside the rejection of a refund claim for service tax on a long-term lease premium, citing compliance with Section 104 conditions. It held the limitation period at six months, not three years as argued, as the refund was a concession, not due to an unconstitutional levy. Filing with PIPDIC instead of Service Tax authorities was deemed valid due to diligence and a reasonable interpretation. The court directed the respondents to process the refund claim within four weeks, under Article 226 powers, allowing the writ petition with no costs imposed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427064