https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780970 A refund claim for pre-GST service tax paid on cancelled or unprovided services under Section 142(5) of the CGST Act remained subject to the limitation period under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, because the transition provision did not expressly override that time bar and its non obstante clause operated only to the extent of the inconsistency expressly addressed. The amounts paid were treated as tax paid under a valid self-assessment regime, not as a deposit, so the claim continued to fall within the statutory refund framework. Minor differences in reasoning across refund orders did not create a vitiating inconsistency. The refund rejection was sustained. en-us Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2026 15:19:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780970 A refund claim for pre-GST service tax paid on cancelled or unprovided services under Section 142(5) of the CGST Act remained subject to the limitation period under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, because the transition provision did not expressly override that time bar and its non obstante clause operated only to the extent of the inconsistency expressly addressed. The amounts paid were treated as tax paid under a valid self-assessment regime, not as a deposit, so the claim continued to fall within the statutory refund framework. Minor differences in reasoning across refund orders did not create a vitiating inconsistency. The refund rejection was sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780970