<?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>2024 (1) TMI 139 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447740</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax paid on a service later found not payable was not barred by unjust enrichment where the evidence showed the tax was borne by the assessee. Invoices, books of account, trial balance and the chartered accountant&#039;s certificate established that service tax was paid from the assessee&#039;s own funds, was not separately recovered from the customer, and was shown as receivable. A contractual clause stating that the rates were inclusive of tax was treated as only a general term and not conclusive proof that the tax incidence had been passed on. The refund was therefore admissible and the order rejecting it was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2024 09:10:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 139 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447740</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax paid on a service later found not payable was not barred by unjust enrichment where the evidence showed the tax was borne by the assessee. Invoices, books of account, trial balance and the chartered accountant&#039;s certificate established that service tax was paid from the assessee&#039;s own funds, was not separately recovered from the customer, and was shown as receivable. A contractual clause stating that the rates were inclusive of tax was treated as only a general term and not conclusive proof that the tax incidence had been passed on. The refund was therefore admissible and the order rejecting it was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>