https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780970 CESTAT Chennai-AT dismissed the appeal, holding the refund claim under s.142(5) CGST was time-barred; the embedded non-obstante clause must be given a restricted meaning and does not override applicable limitation. The tribunal refrained from fully adjudicating unjust-enrichment on facts, noting such claims may require verification, but affirmed that tax self-assessed and paid under a valid statute does not become a mere deposit even if services were not rendered. Limitation may bar the remedy though not necessarily the underlying right, and minor order inconsistencies were not fatal. Appeal disposed. en-us Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780970 CESTAT Chennai-AT dismissed the appeal, holding the refund claim under s.142(5) CGST was time-barred; the embedded non-obstante clause must be given a restricted meaning and does not override applicable limitation. The tribunal refrained from fully adjudicating unjust-enrichment on facts, noting such claims may require verification, but affirmed that tax self-assessed and paid under a valid statute does not become a mere deposit even if services were not rendered. Limitation may bar the remedy though not necessarily the underlying right, and minor order inconsistencies were not fatal. Appeal disposed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780970