Held: The view of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat appears to be that any collection of tax would have to meet the requirements of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no tax can be collected without authority of law. Where the levy of tax itself is found to be invalid or based upon an enactment or charging provision, which is subsequently found to be invalid or violative of t.....

Held: Where the levy of tax itself is found to be invalid or based upon an enactment or charging provision, which is subsequently found to be invalid or violative of the Constitution of India, any payment made in discharge of such a liability, cannot be treated as an exaction of a tax at all. In such circumstances, payment of such an invalid tax would not be collection of tax and can be treated only as payment made.....

Held - We find that the appellant have admittedly paid the service tax under the head of service tax of renting of immovable property service and the same was declared in the ST-3 returns as payment of service tax. In this fact, since the amount was admittedly paid as service tax, the refund of service tax shall be governed by Section 11B.

As regard the judgments relied upon by learned counsel on the issue of limitation, we find that the.....

Held - In the instant case, the disputed tax has been paid by the service recipient. He has paid it directly and has neither collected the amount 
nor issued any invoice. Further, when the amount of tax is held to be paid under a mistake, it cannot be said that the tax was paid under the 
Finance Act, 1994. It was an amount which was paid without having a liability to pay.  There was no authority of law to collect such amo.....

Held - Since as per the settled law the appellant was not liable to pay any tax therefore whatever has been paid by them was due to mistake of law. If that is so then the limitation as prescribed by section 11B ibid is not applicable at all. Although it is the case of the appellant that they have informed the authorities concerned vide communication dated 25.11.2015 about the payment of service tax under protest, but the same was not believed .....

Held - I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Parijat Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik [2018 (359) ELT 113 (Bom.)], had held that the limitation prescribed under 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not applicable to refund claim for service tax paid under mistake of law. 

Therefore, even in the present case, the amount paid by the Appellant was not tax and was never leviable under the .....