2017 (11) TMI 535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce, tax was paid by service provider and later by the service recipient. State has been doubly benefited. Therefore, recourse available to the State is to refund the money not due to the State. It is established principle of law that any amount not due to the State is not collectible - The doctrine of unjust enrichment equally applies to the State. It is directed that the appellant should be r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ould be confined to 75% of the service tax liability and payable by the service recipient, it paid that amount again with interest. Therefore, appellant prays that same transaction having been doubly taxed, firstly, in the hands of the service provider and secondly, in the hands of the service recipient, appellant is entitled to refund of the amounts so doubly paid. 2. On the other hand Revenue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 343 (S.C.). Similarly, Supreme Court has held the same proposition in the cases of Salonah Tea Company Ltd. Etc. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong Ors. Etc. reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Mumbai v. I.T.C. Ltd. reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 532 (S.C.). The doctrine of unjust enrichme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X