2019 (4) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax of Rs. 2,31,139/- with interest as claimed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant and had obtained Service Tax registration in the year 1999, in respect of her professional services rendered in her capacity as a 'Practicing Chartered Accountant' in terms of Section 65(83) read with Section 65(105)(s) of the Finance Act, 1994. It appears that the petitioner had undertaken the work of ledger maintenance of MESCOM on contract basis for the period from July 2003 to September 2005 and had neither collected any service tax from MESCOM nor paid any service tax to the department in respect of the said particular service rendered, as the said service was not falling under the category of 'Taxable Services' unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondents justifying the order impugned would submit that the petitioner has sought for refund after a lapse of 10 years from the date of passing of the order by the Appellate Authority. Filing of the appeal by the Revenue and then withdrawing of the same would not keep the petitioner in an advantageous position. Section 11B of the Act is applicable to the facts of the present case and has been rightly applied by respondent No.2 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Ledger maintenance service rendered to M/s MESCOM whether is a taxable service liable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as duty in the said case was justified and therefore applying the law laid down in the decision of Apex Court in the case of India Cements Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 ELT 358, dismissed the appeal. 22. Now we are faced with a similar situation where the claim of the respondent/assessee is on the ground that they have paid the amount by mistake and therefore they are entitled for the refund of the said amount. If we consider this payment as service tax and duty payable, automatically, Section 11B would be applicable. When once there was no compulsion or duty cast to pay this service tax, the amount of Rs. 1,23,96,948/- paid by petitioner under mistaken notion, would not be a duty or "service tax" payable in law. Therefore, ....