https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769427 The HC held that Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applies to refunds based on statutory exemptions and does not govern refunds paid under a mistaken view of law; therefore a writ under Article 226 is maintainable for recovery of wrongly paid service tax. Principles of restitution under Section 72 of the Contract Act apply, obliging the respondent to refund the amount despite delay. The impugned order was set aside and the petition allowed. en-us Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 14:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769427 The HC held that Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applies to refunds based on statutory exemptions and does not govern refunds paid under a mistaken view of law; therefore a writ under Article 226 is maintainable for recovery of wrongly paid service tax. Principles of restitution under Section 72 of the Contract Act apply, obliging the respondent to refund the amount despite delay. The impugned order was set aside and the petition allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769427