https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793385 Refund of service tax under the SEZ exemption scheme could not be denied where the services were admittedly received and used for authorised SEZ operations, and tax payment was undisputed. Invoice mismatches, rubber-stamp corrections, missing originals and variations in service descriptions were treated as curable procedural defects, not grounds to defeat substantive entitlement. The SEZ Act's overriding fiscal benefit and the phrase "used for authorised operations" were applied in a liberal, purposive manner rather than a hyper-technical one. Once receipt of service, tax payment and nexus with authorised operations were established, refund was payable despite documentation deficiencies. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:09:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793385 Refund of service tax under the SEZ exemption scheme could not be denied where the services were admittedly received and used for authorised SEZ operations, and tax payment was undisputed. Invoice mismatches, rubber-stamp corrections, missing originals and variations in service descriptions were treated as curable procedural defects, not grounds to defeat substantive entitlement. The SEZ Act's overriding fiscal benefit and the phrase "used for authorised operations" were applied in a liberal, purposive manner rather than a hyper-technical one. Once receipt of service, tax payment and nexus with authorised operations were established, refund was payable despite documentation deficiencies. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793385