<?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>2023 (3) TMI 740 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435354</link>
    <description>Service tax paid under a mistaken understanding of liability was treated as tax never legally due, because the foreign contractors had Indian establishments and had already discharged tax on the same transactions. On that basis, the refund was held not to be barred by the ordinary limitation for refund claims, since a payment made under mistake of law does not acquire the character of valid tax merely because it was remitted to the department. The objection of unjust enrichment also failed because the record did not show that the tax burden had been passed on to any buyer or other person. Refund with interest was accordingly stated to be payable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2023 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=707971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 740 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435354</link>
      <description>Service tax paid under a mistaken understanding of liability was treated as tax never legally due, because the foreign contractors had Indian establishments and had already discharged tax on the same transactions. On that basis, the refund was held not to be barred by the ordinary limitation for refund claims, since a payment made under mistake of law does not acquire the character of valid tax merely because it was remitted to the department. The objection of unjust enrichment also failed because the record did not show that the tax burden had been passed on to any buyer or other person. Refund with interest was accordingly stated to be payable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>