https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94900 HC held that tax deposited during investigation on non-taxable services, later found exempt, cannot be retained by the Department, as there was no authority of law to levy or collect such amount. It ruled that mere deposit or description as "service tax" does not convert a non-leviable amount into valid tax. Limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and reliance on the exemption notification could not defeat the assessee's substantive right to refund, particularly after departmental acknowledgment of non-liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refund with applicable interest, preventing unjust enrichment of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:44 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94900 HC held that tax deposited during investigation on non-taxable services, later found exempt, cannot be retained by the Department, as there was no authority of law to levy or collect such amount. It ruled that mere deposit or description as "service tax" does not convert a non-leviable amount into valid tax. Limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and reliance on the exemption notification could not defeat the assessee's substantive right to refund, particularly after departmental acknowledgment of non-liability. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refund with applicable interest, preventing unjust enrichment of the Revenue. Highlights Service Tax Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:44 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94900