Page 150 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

52 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
at the Union level and at the levels of the States concerned, that foreign invest-
ments, apart from domestic investments, are also highly needed for our econo-
my, subject to the regulatory framework projected by laws. In cases like this, a
foreign entity like the principal company in this case, would like to have preci-
sion and certainty about tax liability so that they can accordingly modulate their
future outlook and it goes without saying that the executive authorities con-
cerned including the taxation authorities will have to take the correct perspective
and in accordance with the legislative policy framed as per the wisdom of the
Parliament and the State Legislatures to ensure that there is certainty and preci-
sion in taxation liability, etc. so that the domestic investors as well as foreign in-
vestors, will get more incentive to continue and increase their level of activities,
for the overall better development and growth of our economy.
25. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition
(Civil) stands finally disposed of.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 52 (Telangana)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
M.S. Ramachandra Rao and K. Lakshman, JJ.
VASUDHA BOMMIREDDY
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMR. OF S.T., HYDERABAD
Writ Petition No. 5980 of 2017, decided on 20-12-2019
Refund - Limitation - Service Tax paid under mistake of law - If peti-
tioners not liable to pay ‘Service Tax’ on transaction of purchase of constructed
area along with goods apart from undivided share of land, such payment not
to amount to payment of Service Tax at all - Department also could not have
demanded payment of same - Merely because payment made by petitioner,
same not to partake character of ‘Service Tax’ and Department cannot retain
amount - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax
vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. [paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]
Refund claim - Service Tax paid under mistake of law - Rejection of
claim for non-furnishing of any document to prove actual deposit of said Ser-
vice Tax amount with Central Government - HELD : Petitioner were never
asked to produce such material - Service Tax registration number of vendor
provided by petitioner - Nothing prevented Department from verifying
whether payment made on 19-6-2014, passed on by vendor to Central Govern-
ment by verifying Service Tax Returns filed by vendor - Also, proof of pay-
ment of Service Tax by vendor collected from petitioner to Central Govern-
ment, in relation to property sold filed with writ petition - Therefore, said
ground in impugned order also cannot be accepted - Section 11B of Central
Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act,
1994. [paras 20, 21, 22]

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  214