https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441725 A refund claim was held not to be time-barred where the High Court had directed refund applications to be filed within one year from 14.03.2018. The Tribunal ruled that the extended limitation could not be denied merely because the appellant was not an individual party to the writ proceedings, since the appellant had been a continuing member of the association and was covered by the association's litigation. The contrary view, that the appellant fell outside the High Court's direction, was found unsustainable. Unjust enrichment was not pressed as a surviving objection, and the refund rejection was set aside. en-us Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Aug 2023 08:15:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441725 A refund claim was held not to be time-barred where the High Court had directed refund applications to be filed within one year from 14.03.2018. The Tribunal ruled that the extended limitation could not be denied merely because the appellant was not an individual party to the writ proceedings, since the appellant had been a continuing member of the association and was covered by the association's litigation. The contrary view, that the appellant fell outside the High Court's direction, was found unsustainable. Unjust enrichment was not pressed as a surviving objection, and the refund rejection was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441725