9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Karnataka High Court fairly held that section 35B(1)(b) was inapplicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the challenge to the said order of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court before the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner V. KVR Construction [ 2011 (7) TMI 1334 - SC ORDER ]. The Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the order passed by the Karnataka High Court referred hereinabove and came to hold that the Karnataka High Court had held that the provision of limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply for refund of service tax paid by mistake on exempted services even though the assessee had filed claim under Form-R which shows that they had treated such payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter was admitted by this Court by order dated 24.06.2019 referring to the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Ambica Industries Vrs. Commissioner of Central Excise; reported in (2007) 6 SCC 769 and also in case of Canon Steels (P) Limited Vrs. Commissioner of Customs; reported in (2007) 14 SCC 464. The appeal was admitted on four issues, but, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner did not press the issues No. (i), (ii) and (iii) and only pressed the issue No. (iv) which is quoted hereunder: (iv) Whether the assessing authority/appellate authority can dismiss a claim of refund U/S 11B of the Central Excise Act, (limitation), When the deposit was made out of mistake of fact? The petitioner is the Tripura Cricke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act was not applicable to a refund application filed by the petitioner based on mistake of law. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court fairly held that section 35B(1)(b) was inapplicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the challenge to the said order of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court before the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner V. KVR Construction, reported in 2018 (14) G.S.T.L. J70 (S.C.). The Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the order passed by the Karnataka High Court referred hereinabove and came to hold that the Karnataka High Court had held that the provision of limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply for refund of service tax paid by mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
