Case Details: Heliocon Agro Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union of India- (2025) 29 Centax 287 (Kar.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R. Nataraj, J.
- S/Shri Ganesh V. Deshpande for Ananth S. Jahagirdar, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a recipient of goods transportation services for chemical fertilizers, paid service tax under a mistaken understanding of the law, despite the exemption under Notification No. 3/2013-ST dated 01-03-2013. After realizing the mistake, the petitioner filed a refund claim with the Department. The claim was rejected by the Department on the grounds that it was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection and asserting that the payment was made under a mistake of law.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that the limitation under Section 11B(1) does not apply to refund claims for service tax paid under a mistake of law. The Court directed the Revenue to process the refund, citing the principles of restitution under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court also affirmed that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable in such cases.
List of Cases Cited
- Bengal Investments Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner — 2016 (42) S.T.R. J274 (S.C.)— Referred [Para 8]
- Commissioner v. K.V.R. Construction — 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) — Relied [Para 10]
- Shashidhar Bhat v. Union Of India — W.P. No. 53664 of 2016, decided on 21-1-2020 by Karnataka High Court — Referred [Para 4]
- Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 8]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 3/2013-ST, dated 1-3-2013 [Paras 3, 9, 12]
