Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š— š˜‚š—ŗš—Æš—®š—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—„š—²š—³š˜‚š—»š—± š—–š—¹š—®š—¶š—ŗ š—³š—¼š—æ š—Ŗš—¼š—æš—øš˜€ š—–š—¼š—»š˜š—æš—®š—°š˜ š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—²š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Refund claim for Works Contract Services provided to Government buildings is admissible, as no unjust enrichment occurred."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Appellant providing Works Contract Services for Central and State Government buildings. š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: Filed a refund claim for service tax paid on these services. š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the refund claim is admissible, considering unjust enrichment?

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that since the appellant did not anticipate any service tax burden while submitting bids and contracts excluded additional payments for service tax, the unjust enrichment clause does not apply. The refund claim was therefore allowed.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Appellant vs. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 21 December 2024

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own