https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757447 The HC ruled in favor of the appellant company regarding refund of service tax paid twice. The court held that the one-year limitation period under Section 11B of the Act, 1944 (applicable to service tax via Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994) runs from the date of knowledge of the erroneous double payment, not mechanically from the deposit date. Since this was a dual payment case where the service provider claimed the amount from appellant who had already deposited with state exchequer, and the other party had not sought refund, the appellant's refund could not be denied for delay. The court directed respondents to refund Rs. 4,46,187/- with interest within six months. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757447 The HC ruled in favor of the appellant company regarding refund of service tax paid twice. The court held that the one-year limitation period under Section 11B of the Act, 1944 (applicable to service tax via Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994) runs from the date of knowledge of the erroneous double payment, not mechanically from the deposit date. Since this was a dual payment case where the service provider claimed the amount from appellant who had already deposited with state exchequer, and the other party had not sought refund, the appellant's refund could not be denied for delay. The court directed respondents to refund Rs. 4,46,187/- with interest within six months. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757447