<?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>2025 (1) TMI 787 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764723</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax paid inadvertently was found not to be hit by unjust enrichment where the service recipient had not reimbursed the tax and the underlying services were not liable to service tax. On those facts, the incidence of tax was not passed on, so the refund claims remained maintainable. The decision relied upon by the Revenue was held inapplicable to refund claims under the service tax regime, and the appellant was held entitled to refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:45:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 787 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764723</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax paid inadvertently was found not to be hit by unjust enrichment where the service recipient had not reimbursed the tax and the underlying services were not liable to service tax. On those facts, the incidence of tax was not passed on, so the refund claims remained maintainable. The decision relied upon by the Revenue was held inapplicable to refund claims under the service tax regime, and the appellant was held entitled to refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>