TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANA ORS. ETC. [ 1979 (11) TMI 261 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India speaking through Justice Krishna Iyer has held that The petitioners who had, under mistake, paid larger sums which, after the decision of this Court holding the levy illegal, have become refundable, demand a direction to that effect to the Market Committees concerned. There cannot be any dispute about the obligation or the amounts since the Market Committees have accounts of collections and are willing to disgorge the excess sums Indeed, if they file suits within the limitation period, decrees must surely follow. What the period of limitation is and whether Article 226 will apply are moot as is evident from the High Courts judgment, but we are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantive right of claim for refund based on decisions of the CESTAT wherein the factual position was different and activities carried out by the Appellants were taxable services? 2. Heard Shri. L.S. Karthikeyan, learned Advocate for appellant and Smt. K.R. Vanita, learned Advocate for respondent. 3. Appellant-Assessee's case is, it had entered into an agreement with a Professional Lien Search LLC, a Company based in the United States of America (USA) and providing support services to real estate property buyers in the USA. Appellant's activity is to verify the information on various types of issues related to the property proposed to be purchased by the prospective purchasers such as Property Tax information, Building Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivities undertaken fall under export of services. Having recorded the said finding, he has allowed a part of the claim and rejected the remaining claim on the ground that the claim was not filed within one year from the date of export. He submitted that when appellant was not liable to pay tax at all, the rejection of part of the claim is untenable. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this appeal. 6. Smt. K.R. Vanitha, for the Revenue, argued opposing the appeal. 7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 8. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, the Assessing Authority has recorded in para 18 of his order that appellant's services fall under Rule 5 of the place of provision of services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , (1980) 1 SCC 416] ruled that the excess of 1 per cent over the original rate of 2 per cent was ultra vires. This cast a consequential liability on the Market Committees to refund the illegal portion. They were not so ordered probably because they could not straightway be quantified. The petitioners who had, under mistake, paid larger sums which, after the decision of this Court holding the levy illegal, have become refundable, demand a direction to that effect to the Market Committees concerned. There cannot be any dispute about the obligation or the amounts since the Market Committees have accounts of collections and are willing to disgorge the excess sums Indeed, if they file suits within the limitation period, decrees must surely foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
