https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443555 The dominant issue was whether refund of an amount deposited as GST under a mistake of law could be denied as time-barred under s.54(1) CGST Act. Applying Art. 265, the HC held that since GST was concededly not chargeable on the service in question, the State lacked authority to retain the amount collected, and s.54 limitation could not defeat restitution where tax is not leviable and the deposit is proved to be under mistake of law; unjust enrichment was inapplicable because the indirect tax burden had not been passed on to the service recipient. The impugned rejection was set aside and refund was directed; the petition was allowed. en-us Mon, 18 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443555 The dominant issue was whether refund of an amount deposited as GST under a mistake of law could be denied as time-barred under s.54(1) CGST Act. Applying Art. 265, the HC held that since GST was concededly not chargeable on the service in question, the State lacked authority to retain the amount collected, and s.54 limitation could not defeat restitution where tax is not leviable and the deposit is proved to be under mistake of law; unjust enrichment was inapplicable because the indirect tax burden had not been passed on to the service recipient. The impugned rejection was set aside and refund was directed; the petition was allowed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 18 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443555