https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446074 Amounts deposited under protest towards possible service tax on interchange income retained their character as a mere deposit, since the department neither issued a show cause notice nor raised a demand in accordance with law; hence, retention was not "tax" collected under authority of law and violated Article 265 (read with Article 14), applying the SC principle that payment under protest/mistake of law does not validate appropriation absent lawful levy. The department's rejection of refund was also unsustainable as unjust enrichment could not be invoked to justify retention where the State had no legal entitlement. The HC held writ jurisdiction was properly invoked and directed refund of the illegally retained amounts with interest; the petition was allowed. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446074 Amounts deposited under protest towards possible service tax on interchange income retained their character as a mere deposit, since the department neither issued a show cause notice nor raised a demand in accordance with law; hence, retention was not "tax" collected under authority of law and violated Article 265 (read with Article 14), applying the SC principle that payment under protest/mistake of law does not validate appropriation absent lawful levy. The department's rejection of refund was also unsustainable as unjust enrichment could not be invoked to justify retention where the State had no legal entitlement. The HC held writ jurisdiction was properly invoked and directed refund of the illegally retained amounts with interest; the petition was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446074