https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447386 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal for service tax refund, rejecting Revenue's unjust enrichment argument. The tribunal found that contracts were signed when service tax exemption existed under notification 25/2012-ST, making it inconceivable that appellant would have anticipated exemption withdrawal and included service tax in bid prices. Since no service tax was payable during bidding period before March 1, 2015, there was no burden to pass on to client departments. The Commissioner's reasoning was based on impermissible speculation about bidding decisions without legal basis for presuming service tax elements were included in all-inclusive contract prices. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Dec 2023 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447386 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal for service tax refund, rejecting Revenue's unjust enrichment argument. The tribunal found that contracts were signed when service tax exemption existed under notification 25/2012-ST, making it inconceivable that appellant would have anticipated exemption withdrawal and included service tax in bid prices. Since no service tax was payable during bidding period before March 1, 2015, there was no burden to pass on to client departments. The Commissioner's reasoning was based on impermissible speculation about bidding decisions without legal basis for presuming service tax elements were included in all-inclusive contract prices. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447386