https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784012 The dominant issue was whether refund of excess service tax, arising because part of the contracted service was not provided and consideration was returned, was barred by the one-year limitation under s.11B. The Tribunal held that the excess tax was in substance adjustable by the assessee through suo motu credit under Rule 6(3) of the ST Rules, for which no limitation period applied; therefore, on migration, s.142(3) of the CGST Act mandated cash payment of any amount accruing under the service tax law. Consequently, rejection on the ground of limitation under s.11B was set aside and refund was allowed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:05:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784012 The dominant issue was whether refund of excess service tax, arising because part of the contracted service was not provided and consideration was returned, was barred by the one-year limitation under s.11B. The Tribunal held that the excess tax was in substance adjustable by the assessee through suo motu credit under Rule 6(3) of the ST Rules, for which no limitation period applied; therefore, on migration, s.142(3) of the CGST Act mandated cash payment of any amount accruing under the service tax law. Consequently, rejection on the ground of limitation under s.11B was set aside and refund was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784012