2016 (6) TMI 415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate ORDER Per D.N. Patel, J 1. This writ petition has been preferred for getting back the amount of Rs. 2,52,762/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty two thousand seven hundred and sixty two only), which was deposited by this petitioner despite there is no liability to make payment of any type of tax under any law mu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not leviable at all. Nonetheless, the aforesaid amount was deposited by this petitioner with the respondents under the mistake of fact and law both and hence, this petitioner is seeking return of his money. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to be read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, now refu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the year 2005-06. This amount was never recovered by this petitioner from the persons to whom the services were provided by this petitioner in the relevant years. 7. Looking to the paragraph no.06 of the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jharkhand, which reads as under :- "6. That in reply to para 11 of the writ application it is stated and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the facts of the present case because, the amount paid by the petitioner is never under the Central Excise Tax nor under the service tax when there is no liability to make the payment of the amount and under the mistake of facts or under mistake of law or under both if any amount is deposited by the assessee, the same cannot be retained by the Union of India under the one or other pretext when a ....