https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463350 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside rejection of a refund claim for service tax paid. Applying section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, the tribunal held refunds for services not provided must be disposed under the existing law and paid in cash, but the one-year limitation in section 11B(1) CEA does not apply; only unjust enrichment can bar refund. Because the contracts were cancelled before services were rendered and credit notes issued, no tax liability arose and the refund was wrongly refused. The refund claim is allowed. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 19:01:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463350 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside rejection of a refund claim for service tax paid. Applying section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, the tribunal held refunds for services not provided must be disposed under the existing law and paid in cash, but the one-year limitation in section 11B(1) CEA does not apply; only unjust enrichment can bar refund. Because the contracts were cancelled before services were rendered and credit notes issued, no tax liability arose and the refund was wrongly refused. The refund claim is allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463350