https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783104 HC allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting refund of service tax deposited during investigation. It held that the amount was paid under a bona fide mistake for a non-taxable service, and the Department had no authority in law to retain it. Reliance by the Adjudicating Authority and CESTAT on Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Notification No. 09/2016-ST to deny refund on limitation grounds was held unsustainable, as procedural provisions cannot defeat a substantive right to restitution of tax collected without authority of law. HC directed grant of refund with applicable interest, preventing unjust enrichment of the Revenue. en-us Fri, 05 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783104 HC allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting refund of service tax deposited during investigation. It held that the amount was paid under a bona fide mistake for a non-taxable service, and the Department had no authority in law to retain it. Reliance by the Adjudicating Authority and CESTAT on Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Notification No. 09/2016-ST to deny refund on limitation grounds was held unsustainable, as procedural provisions cannot defeat a substantive right to restitution of tax collected without authority of law. HC directed grant of refund with applicable interest, preventing unjust enrichment of the Revenue. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 05 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783104