https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794878 Refund claims under section 142(5) of the CGST Act for cesses paid on services that were ultimately not provided are addressed through the existing-law framework. The notes state that such claims should not be rejected merely because they were filed after the original tax payment, since entitlement arises from the non-provision of service. They further explain that unjust enrichment does not apply where the refunded amount is returned to the person from whom it was received through the applicable service-tax refund mechanism, including an intermediary or financing channel. On this basis, the notes identify entitlement to refund and rejection of the limitation and unjust-enrichment objections. en-us Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:26:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794878 Refund claims under section 142(5) of the CGST Act for cesses paid on services that were ultimately not provided are addressed through the existing-law framework. The notes state that such claims should not be rejected merely because they were filed after the original tax payment, since entitlement arises from the non-provision of service. They further explain that unjust enrichment does not apply where the refunded amount is returned to the person from whom it was received through the applicable service-tax refund mechanism, including an intermediary or financing channel. On this basis, the notes identify entitlement to refund and rejection of the limitation and unjust-enrichment objections. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794878