https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785319 Retrospective exemption provisions under sections 102 and 103 of the Finance Act, 1994 were applied to resurfacing and allied work at an Air Force station, treating the activity as governmental, non-commercial construction-related work eligible for refund of service tax collected during the intervening period. The special refund mechanism was read as overriding general refund objections, so denial on the basis of Section 11B or unjust enrichment was not accepted. The stamp duty objection was limited to cases where duty was actually chargeable. However, because the tax burden had been reimbursed by MES, the refund claim was required to be reconsidered after giving MES an opportunity to be impleaded as co-applicant. en-us Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:41:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785319 Retrospective exemption provisions under sections 102 and 103 of the Finance Act, 1994 were applied to resurfacing and allied work at an Air Force station, treating the activity as governmental, non-commercial construction-related work eligible for refund of service tax collected during the intervening period. The special refund mechanism was read as overriding general refund objections, so denial on the basis of Section 11B or unjust enrichment was not accepted. The stamp duty objection was limited to cases where duty was actually chargeable. However, because the tax burden had been reimbursed by MES, the refund claim was required to be reconsidered after giving MES an opportunity to be impleaded as co-applicant. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785319