TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate for respondent ORDER Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this court impugning the order dated 23.12.2015, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner seeking payment of Rs. 17,77,023/-, was rejected. In the case in hand, the petitioner was awarded a contract for lifting of dry leaves/horticulture waste/ sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion dated 20.6.2012 w.e.f. 1.7.2012. However, this notification did not come to the notice of the Municipal Corporation, hence, the amount of service tax, which was included in the amount offered by the petitioner, was being paid and as a consequence, the same was being deposited by the petitioner with the department. From December, 2012 onwards, finding that service tax is not leviable on the kin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner. As subsequently, the service has been exempted from tax, the petitioner cannot be paid that amount as the same was being paid for further deposit with the service tax department. The petitioner cannot be permitted to be unjustly enriched at the cost of the State. Even for the period from July, 2012 till November, 2012, the amount was paid by mistake as the notification granting ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the notice of the Municipal Corporation, the bills raised by the petitioner were cleared upto November, 2012, which included the amount of service tax as well, however, from December, 2012 onwards, the amount of service tax was reduced. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be paid that amount as well. However, we do not find any merit in the claim made. Once the amount offe....