Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Deepak Pandey, S/o. Late C.P. Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax Service Tax Division, Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Order :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. The present appeal is being preferred against the order dated 10.01.2025, transmitted on 21.01.2025, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), bearing Final Order No. 50065/2025. This appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :
“Whether, the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal are justified in holding that the application for refund of Rs.14,89,086/- was barred by limitation by virtue of notice contained in Section 102 sub-section (3) of the Finance Act, 1994?
2. Facts of the case, as averred in the appeal, are that the appellant/assessee is duly registered with the Service Tax Department and has been allotted Service Tax Registration No. AFUPP1402JSD001. The dispute in the present matter traces its origin to the issuance of a first summons dated 23.01.2016 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Along with the said summons, the Department furnished a calculation sheet alleging service tax liability of Rs. 57,80,852/- (inclusive of cess) for the period from April 2015 to Dec
Refund claims for amounts paid under mistaken law must be honored, particularly when tax liability is later recognized as non-existent, overriding strict procedural limitations.
Voluntary payments made under a mistake are not subject to the limitation period for refund claims under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.
Tax paid under a mistake of law must be refunded irrespective of limitation, as established in previous judicial precedents.
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
Since the provisions of section 11B of the Act are not applicable to the claim of refund made by the petitioner, the limitation prescribed under the said provision would also not be applicable and th....
Appellant entitled to interest on delayed refund as per Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, which specifically governs the timing and rate of interest applicable.
The time limit for refund applications under Section 54 of the GST Act is directory, allowing claims beyond two years if justified, in line with Article 265 of the Constitution.
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
Adjustment of service tax payments can only occur through a formal refund claim under Section 11B, and the claimant must prove that the tax burden has not been passed to third parties.
Claims for refund of excise duty under Section 11B must be filed within one year; reversal of CENVAT credit to obtain exemption does not constitute a mistake of law, thus refund claims beyond this li....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
