https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796367 Service tax paid by a manpower service provider after complete reverse charge applied from 1 April 2015 was not payable by that provider; liability rested with the recipient. Where the Department retained the provider's payment and also recovered tax on the same services from the recipient, the duplicate collection resulted in unjust enrichment. The notes state that the provider learned of the error only through the recipient's debit note and that statutory limitation should not defeat restitution in these exceptional circumstances. They further state that writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite an appellate remedy, and the wrongfully retained amount should be refunded. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796367 Service tax paid by a manpower service provider after complete reverse charge applied from 1 April 2015 was not payable by that provider; liability rested with the recipient. Where the Department retained the provider's payment and also recovered tax on the same services from the recipient, the duplicate collection resulted in unjust enrichment. The notes state that the provider learned of the error only through the recipient's debit note and that statutory limitation should not defeat restitution in these exceptional circumstances. They further state that writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite an appellate remedy, and the wrongfully retained amount should be refunded. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 29 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796367