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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against cestat decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for refund based on procedural and legislative interpretations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on refund denial and limitation. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. consideration of principles governing tax refund requests. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. recognition of refund eligibility due to mistaken payments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. affirmation of constitutional principles in tax refund. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. final order granting refund. (Para 21 , 23) |
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 appell
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.
Deposits made during investigation at department's insistence under mistaken duty notion are not 'duty'; Section 11B inapplicable; refundable with 12% interest from deposit to refund date.
Deposits made at departmental insistence during investigation under mistaken duty notion are not 'duty' under Section 11B; refundable with 12% interest from deposit to refund date.
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
