Issues: (i) Whether examination-related services supplied to schools for voluntary Olympiad and talent-search examinations qualify for exemption under Entry No. 9(b) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was validly invoked; (iii) Whether penalties consequential to the tax demand were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether examination-related services supplied to schools for voluntary Olympiad and talent-search examinations qualify for exemption under Entry No. 9(b) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.

Analysis: Entry No. 9(b) exempts services provided to an educational institution in relation to the conduct of examination. Its plain terms do not restrict the exemption to mandatory Board examinations or examinations forming part of the prescribed curriculum. The expression "relating to" has a broad scope and covers activities directly connected with examination, including preparation of question papers, supply of OMR sheets and other examination material, evaluation, tabulation and declaration of results.

Analysis: The schools identified participants, collected and remitted fees, supplied student details, conducted and supervised the tests at their premises, and forwarded answer sheets. The contractual and commercial relationship was therefore between the appellant and the schools; the students' ultimate benefit did not make them recipients of the service. Voluntary participation and promotional features did not alter the essential examination-related character of the services. Subsequent GST payment could not govern taxability under the earlier service-tax regime.

Conclusion: The services were exempt under Entry No. 9(b) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was validly invoked.

Analysis: The dispute concerned interpretation of the exemption entry. The appellant maintained regular accounts, disclosed receipts in financial statements and income-tax returns, and supplied information during investigation; the demand was based on its own records. There was no material establishing deliberate concealment, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment founded on an interpretational position does not establish suppression, particularly where divergent views existed on examination-related services.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period was unsustainable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties consequential to the tax demand were sustainable.

Analysis: The penalties rested on the alleged suppressed non-payment of service tax. The tax demand failed on merits and the extended period was unavailable. The record also supported a bona fide belief regarding exemption in an interpretational dispute.

Conclusion: Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, including the penalty on the director, were unsustainable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Examination services supplied to educational institutions remain within the exemption notwithstanding that the examinations are optional or outside the prescribed Board curriculum, and no extended-period liability or consequential penal exposure arises on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption for services relating to conduct of examination by an educational institution covers all services having a direct and proximate nexus with that examination, without importing an unstated requirement that the examination be compulsory or curriculum-based.

Issues: (i) Whether service-tax demand on legal services received under the reverse charge mechanism was sustainable; (ii) Whether penalty for non-payment of such service tax was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether service-tax demand on legal services received under the reverse charge mechanism was sustainable.

Analysis: Legal services supplied by an advocate or a firm of advocates to a business entity were taxable, and the recipient bore the entire tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism. However, the assessee was entitled to avail CENVAT credit of the tax payable on those input legal services for providing taxable output services. Payment of tax and availment of corresponding credit would therefore create a revenue-neutral situation. Applying the settled treatment of revenue neutrality in reverse-charge cases, the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand was unsustainable on account of revenue neutrality, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for non-payment of such service tax was sustainable.

Analysis: Since the underlying service-tax demand was not sustainable, no interest or penalty could survive.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed liability arising from reverse-charge tax on the disputed legal services was annulled, with consequential relief available in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax payable under reverse charge is fully available to the same assessee as CENVAT credit, the resulting revenue-neutrality renders the tax demand and consequential penal liability unsustainable.

Issues: Whether premiums retained on lapse or repudiation of life-insurance policies for non-payment of premium or misdeclaration constitute consideration for a declared service of agreeing to tolerate an act under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The insurance contract became void or lapsed upon the specified defaults, with no surrender value or benefit becoming payable where the policy was not revived. Retention of amounts already paid was an incident of the original insurance arrangement and not a distinct agreement under which the insurer undertook, for consideration, to tolerate a default or situation. A declared service under Section 66E(e) requires an independent contractual obligation specifically covering the act of refraining, tolerating, or doing an act, together with a necessary nexus and flow of consideration for that obligation. Treating the retained premium as consideration for a separate declared service would also result in double taxation.

Conclusion: The retained premiums are not taxable as consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act; the service-tax demand, interest, and penalties are unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was leviable on construction and sale of residential flats, substantially undertaken before 01.07.2010, under Construction of Residential Complex Service; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period, interest and penalties could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was leviable on construction and sale of residential flats, substantially undertaken before 01.07.2010, under Construction of Residential Complex Service.

Analysis: Composite construction agreements did not contain a statutory mechanism for segregating goods and service components during the relevant period. The settled position concerning builders' construction for prospective purchasers before 01.07.2010 did not permit the proposed levy on composite consideration. The construction was also for individual purchasers' personal use, attracting the exclusion from the meaning of residential complex, supported by the applicable departmental clarification.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand on the construction activity was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period, interest and penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The assessee was registered and filed statutory returns, while the dispute arose from an unsettled and interpretational question concerning the taxable entry and departmental clarification. Mere non-payment in those circumstances did not establish deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax. As the substantive demand failed, consequential interest and penalties could not survive; the bona fide interpretational dispute also warranted the statutory penalty protection.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was invalid, and the consequential interest and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax liability and its consequential fiscal imposts were annulled; payment of the late fee is to be verified and adjusted if established.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite pre-01.07.2010 construction transaction cannot be subjected to the proposed service-tax levy where the legal framework did not provide for segregation of goods and service value; an interpretational dispute without deliberate suppression cannot justify the extended limitation period or penalties.

Issues: (i) Whether the sub-contractor's earthwork and site-formation activities qualified as works contract service eligible for exemption under Serial No. 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand.

Issue (i): Whether the sub-contractor's earthwork and site-formation activities qualified as works contract service eligible for exemption under Serial No. 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Analysis: Serial No. 29(h) exempts works contract services supplied by a sub-contractor to a contractor supplying exempt works contract services. The main contractor's work relating to construction of dams and canals for the State Government was undisputedly exempt; the sole question was whether the appellant supplied works contract service. Under Section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994, the relevant requirement is that property in goods involved in executing the contract is leviable to tax as a sale of goods, not that goods must be separately supplied, billed, or actually subjected to VAT. The contract was composite, requiring the appellant to provide machinery, labour, fuel, lubricants, spares and other materials for excavation and earthwork. Goods used and consumed in execution may pass in an altered form by accretion and constitute a deemed sale. Non-payment of VAT because of an available exemption, and subsequent reimbursement of VAT deducted by the main contractor, did not alter the works-contract character of the activity.

Conclusion: The activities were works contract services and qualified for exemption under Serial No. 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand.

Analysis: The dispute involved interpretation of exemptions applicable to Government dam and canal works, the nature of works contract service, and the VAT treatment of goods used in execution. The appellant could reasonably hold a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. The managing director's statement concerning absence of transfer of goods reflected an interpretation of the arrangement and was not cogent evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax. The finding that the managing director lacked complicity or active planning to evade tax also undermined the allegation of intentional suppression by the company. No independent positive evidence established suppression with intent to evade.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand failed both because the subcontracted activity was exempt works contract service and because the extended limitation period was unavailable; consequential penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite subcontract requiring use of goods in execution is a works contract where property in those goods passes in any form by accretion, and non-payment of VAT under an exemption does not negate its character as a deemed sale; a bona fide interpretative dispute without positive evidence of intent to evade precludes invocation of the extended limitation period.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's labour contract constituted taxable manpower recruitment or supply service rather than job work or a manufacturing contract; (ii) whether the extended limitation period, demand based on Form 16A receipts, and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's labour contract constituted taxable manpower recruitment or supply service rather than job work or a manufacturing contract.

Analysis: The work order, read as a whole, appointed the appellant as a labour contractor, described the activities to be performed by labour, required submission and payment of labour bills, and required compliance documentation concerning the workers' PF and ESIC contributions. Payment calculated per metric tonne did not alter the essential nature of the arrangement as labour supply. The contract contained no output-quality standards, production benchmarks, or consequences for failure to achieve them that would indicate an independent job-work contract. The appellant's unretracted investigation statement also confirmed that it acted as a labour contractor. Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not require exclusion of the appellant's own statement in the circumstances, since the appellant had failed to avail repeated hearing opportunities.

Conclusion: The activity was taxable manpower recruitment or supply service, and the service-tax demand was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period, demand based on Form 16A receipts, and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant knew that it provided labour-supply service but did not disclose and pay tax on that taxable activity. In the absence of complete records from the appellant, the receipts reflected in Form 16A could be relied upon; the appellant did not establish that those receipts related to any non-taxable activity. These facts justified invocation of the extended period and the penalty for non-payment of service tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period, computation of demand using Form 16A receipts, and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax liability, interest, and Section 78 penalty remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: The true character of a service arrangement is determined from the contract read as a whole; payment measured by output does not displace its character as manpower supply where the contractual obligations and surrounding evidence establish supply of labour.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax on weighbridge-service receipts.

Analysis: The assessee was registered, regularly filed service-tax returns, discharged tax on other taxable services, and recorded the weighbridge receipts in its financial records. No material established that the non-payment arose from anything other than a bona fide mistake or that it involved suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The matter was detected during audit, and the dispute involved legal interpretation.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period was invalid; the demand was time-barred.

Issues: (i) Whether profit received by a unit-holder from investment in venture capital fund units was taxable as Banking and Financial Services; (ii) whether royalty for permitting use of copyright was taxable as Intellectual Property Service; (iii) whether CENVAT credit could be denied for documentary and invoice-related discrepancies despite undisputed receipt and use of taxed input services; (iv) whether the extended period of limitation was invocable; and (v) whether penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether profit received by a unit-holder from investment in venture capital fund units was taxable as Banking and Financial Services.

Analysis: The investment agreement established that the receipt represented profit distributed against units held in the venture capital fund. The appellant was a unit-holder receiving investment profits, not rendering fund-management services for that receipt. Accounting classification of both investment profit and management fees under one revenue head could not determine taxability. Revenue produced no supporting evidence to establish that the investment profit was consideration for a taxable service.

Conclusion: The investment profit was not taxable as Banking and Financial Services; the related demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether royalty for permitting use of copyright was taxable as Intellectual Property Service.

Analysis: The royalty arrangement concerned the copyright in the PRP concept and software specifications. Copyright was expressly excluded from the definition of intellectual property right applicable to Intellectual Property Service. The associated trademarks and domain rights were incidental to the principal copyright-related arrangement.

Conclusion: Royalty for the use of copyright was not taxable as Intellectual Property Service; the related demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether CENVAT credit could be denied for documentary and invoice-related discrepancies despite undisputed receipt and use of taxed input services.

Analysis: Payment of service tax by the suppliers, receipt of the services by the appellant, and their use for providing output services were undisputed. Deficiencies in documents, address mismatches, or invoices issued in the names of key managerial personnel were procedural discrepancies and could not defeat the substantive credit entitlement.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit could not be denied on the stated technical grounds; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The disputed receipt and invoices had been disclosed in the books of account and financial statements for 2007-08, whereas the show-cause notice was issued only on 17.10.2012. A demand based on differences between returns and audited financial records, without evidence of suppression, could not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The tax demands were unsustainable on merits and limitation. The foundation for penalties consequently did not survive.

Conclusion: Penalties were not imposable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned service-tax demands, denial of CENVAT credit, and penalties were annulled, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Taxability must rest on the substantive character of the receipt and evidence of a taxable service; accounting nomenclature or return-to-books discrepancies alone cannot establish service-tax liability or suppression, while substantive CENVAT credit cannot be refused for procedural defects where receipt and use of taxed input services are undisputed.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax could be sustained on works executed for Haryana State Warehousing Corporation after the original adjudication dropping that demand had attained finality; (ii) Whether works contract services supplied by a subcontractor for exempt canal, dam and irrigation works could be taxed as manpower supply services.

Issue (i): Whether service tax could be sustained on works executed for Haryana State Warehousing Corporation after the original adjudication dropping that demand had attained finality.

Analysis: The original adjudication classified the office-building activity as works contract service and dropped the demand. Although Revenue appealed, it did not raise any ground concerning this activity. The dropped demand consequently attained finality and could not be confirmed in the appellate order.

Conclusion: The demand relating to Haryana State Warehousing Corporation was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether works contract services supplied by a subcontractor for exempt canal, dam and irrigation works could be taxed as manpower supply services.

Analysis: The appellant performed part of the main contractor's works relating to canal, dam and irrigation projects. The principal works were exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, and the subcontracted works contract fell within Serial No. 29(h), which exempts a subcontractor's works contract services supplied to a contractor providing exempt works contract services. The demand raised under manpower supply services was therefore not maintainable.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to service tax under manpower supply services for the subcontracted irrigation works, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand on both counts could not survive on merits; the limitation issue was not adjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: A subcontractor's works contract service is exempt where it is supplied for an exempt works contract undertaken by the principal contractor, and a demand dropped in original adjudication becomes final when Revenue does not challenge that finding.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could condone a delay of more than seven years in filing a service-tax appeal.

Analysis: Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires an appeal to be filed within two months of receipt of the adjudication order and permits condonation, on sufficient cause, only for a further one month. The statutory appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that outer limit; the merits of the underlying dispute are immaterial while deciding limitation.

Conclusion: The appeal filed more than seven years after receipt of the original order was barred by limitation and could not be entertained. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether exemption for taxable services supplied to an SEZ unit for authorised operations can be denied solely for non-production of Form A-2; (ii) Whether late fee for delayed ST-3 returns may exceed the statutory ceiling.

Issue (i): Whether exemption for taxable services supplied to an SEZ unit for authorised operations can be denied solely for non-production of Form A-2.

Analysis: Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act confers substantive exemption for eligible supplies to an SEZ unit for authorised operations. Conditions regulating that exemption must arise under the SEZ statutory framework; a procedural requirement imposed through notifications issued under the Finance Act cannot curtail the statutory benefit. Section 51 gives the special enactment overriding effect. The services were undisputedly supplied to an SEZ unit and used for authorised operations, and no independent ineligibility was found.

Conclusion: Exemption cannot be denied merely because Form A-2 for the relevant financial year was not produced. The service-tax demand, interest and penalty are set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether late fee for delayed ST-3 returns may exceed the statutory ceiling.

Analysis: Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 limits late fee for delayed filing of ST-3 returns. Any amount levied beyond the ceiling applicable to the relevant period is impermissible and requires re-quantification.

Conclusion: The late fee must be confined to the legally permissible statutory limit, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The SEZ exemption remains available where services were rendered to an eligible SEZ unit for authorised operations notwithstanding non-compliance with Form A-2, and any late fee must remain within the statutory cap.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive SEZ exemption for services used in authorised operations cannot be defeated by a procedural Form A-2 requirement imposed outside the SEZ statutory framework; late fee is enforceable only up to the statutory maximum.

Issues: (i) Whether licensing pre-existing technical know-how, technical documentation and trademarks constituted Consulting Engineer Service; (ii) Whether service tax could be levied from the recipient under reverse charge for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04, before Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 came into force.

Issue (i): Whether licensing pre-existing technical know-how, technical documentation and trademarks constituted Consulting Engineer Service.

Analysis: The arrangement granted a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use pre-existing proprietary technology, know-how, technical documentation and trademarks. The provider had not been engaged to develop a client-specific engineering solution, render professional engineering advice, or undertake a customised engineering assignment. Further, it was a vehicle manufacturer rather than a professionally qualified engineer or engineering firm within the then applicable definition. The transaction was therefore a licence or transfer of the right to use intangible intellectual property, whose engineering subject matter did not by itself convert it into consultancy.

Conclusion: The licensed know-how, documentation and trademarks were not Consulting Engineer Service; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax could be levied from the recipient under reverse charge for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04, before Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 came into force.

Analysis: Recipient liability for services received from abroad arose only upon the enactment of Section 66A with effect from 18.04.2006. Rule 2(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, relied on in the adjudication order, was not invoked in the show cause notice. Rule 6 could not apply because there was no evidence that the foreign provider had authorised the assessee to pay tax on its behalf, and the agreement expressly denied any agency relationship. A levy cannot be shifted to a recipient through delegated legislation in the absence of clear statutory authority.

Conclusion: No reverse-charge service-tax liability could be imposed on the assessee for the disputed pre-Section 66A period; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The licensing arrangement remained outside the taxable category invoked, and the pre-2006 statutory framework did not support recipient-side service-tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A licence to use pre-existing technical know-how and trademarks, without a client-specific engineering advisory engagement, is not Consulting Engineer Service; recipient liability for foreign services requires express statutory authority and cannot be imposed for the period before Section 66A.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied where running account bills, payment orders and service-tax payment challans evidenced input services and payment of service tax.

Analysis: Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 require documents evidencing taxable service and service-tax payment, with prescribed material particulars. The proviso to Rule 9(2) permits credit despite omission of some particulars where the document contains essential tax, service, value, registration and address details and receipt of services is established. The running account bills were prepared by contractors and verified with measurement books; they were supported by payment records. The service tax paid by the appellant under the reverse-charge mechanism was evidenced by challans, which are valid credit documents. As receipt of construction services and payment of service tax were undisputed, credit could not be refused on a hyper-technical objection to the nomenclature or form of the documents.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the disputed input services was admissible; the demand, interest and penalty could not survive.

Issues: Whether procurement of privately owned railway wagons under the Liberalized Wagon Investment Scheme and receipt of freight concession constituted a taxable supply of tangible goods for use service to the Railways.

Analysis: Service tax requires an identifiable service rendered by one person to another for consideration. The wagons were procured by the assessee at its own cost for transportation of its own goods, remained dedicated to its traffic, and were not made available to the Railways for independent commercial exploitation. The transportation service flowed from the Railways to the assessee, which paid freight at concessional rates. The freight concession was a policy incentive and reduction in freight linked to capital investment, not consideration flowing for any independent service. The arrangement could not be artificially divided into separate transportation and wagon-supply transactions; nor could self-facilitation of logistics amount to provision of service to another.

Conclusion: The assessee did not render taxable supply of tangible goods for use service to the Railways, and the freight concession was not taxable consideration. The service-tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether coaching for CA-CPT, ICWA-Foundation and Intermediate (10+2) examinations qualifies for exemption as coaching leading to an educational qualification recognised by law under Notification No. 33/2011-S.T. dated 25.04.2011.

Analysis: The exemption applies to coaching or training leading to a certificate, diploma, degree or educational qualification recognised by law, without confining its benefit to a final-stage qualification. CA-CPT is a compulsory first stage of the statutory CA course governed by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and its regulations, since successful completion is necessary for progression to IPCC. ICWA-Foundation is likewise a prescribed statutory stage of the professional course. Intermediate coaching leads to a recognised educational qualification. The notification cannot be restricted by importing conditions that the qualification must be final, that fees must remain within a prescribed limit, or that affiliation must be separately established. The Revenue's prior acceptance of exemption for identical coaching in subsequent periods, absent any change in facts or law, also militates against an inconsistent fiscal position.

Conclusion: Coaching imparted for CA-CPT, ICWA-Foundation and Intermediate (10+2) examinations is exempt from service tax under Notification No. 33/2011-S.T. dated 25.04.2011.

Issues: Whether service tax under reverse charge on royalty paid for mining rights could be determined without examining the mining lease agreements and the date on which the right was granted.

Analysis: Service tax is chargeable under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 on services provided or agreed to be provided. Before 01.04.2016, services provided by the Government were generally within the negative list under Section 66D(a)(iv) of the Finance Act, 1994; after its amendment, Government services to business entities became taxable. The date of the mining lease is material to determine whether the grant of mining rights was governed by the pre-amendment regime. As the lease agreements were not produced before either lower authority, the factual basis necessary for this determination was absent.

Conclusion: The demand order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after examination of the mining lease agreements in accordance with the applicable law.

Issues: (i) Whether a sub-contractor remains liable to service tax where the principal contractor has discharged tax on the services; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked for the demand.

Issue (i): Whether a sub-contractor remains liable to service tax where the principal contractor has discharged tax on the services.

Analysis: The Larger Bench ruling established that payment of service tax by the principal contractor does not extinguish the sub-contractor's separate obligation to discharge tax on the consideration received by it.

Conclusion: The sub-contractor is independently liable to pay service tax notwithstanding payment of tax by the principal contractor; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked for the demand.

Analysis: The notice did not contain substantive evidence establishing wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The liability of sub-contractors had been subject to contradictory Tribunal decisions until settled by the Larger Bench, rendering the matter interpretational. Such circumstances did not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not invocable; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the substantive tax liability of a sub-contractor was affirmed, the demand failed because the show-cause notice was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period cannot be invoked in an interpretational dispute absent evidence of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked to sustain service-tax demand solely on Income-tax Department third-party data, absent evidence of wilful suppression or intent to evade tax.

Analysis: The demand for October 2014 to March 2015 was raised through a show-cause notice dated 28.09.2020 by invoking the extended limitation period. The material relied upon consisted solely of third-party Income-tax data. The assessee had a bona fide belief that its services were exempt under entries 12 and 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Mere non-registration, non-payment, or a discrepancy between Income-tax data and service-tax disclosures did not establish fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or a deliberate intent to evade tax. The Department bore the burden to establish the statutory conditions for the extended period, which was not discharged.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; the surviving service-tax demand was time-barred and was set aside.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked to raise service-tax demand solely on third-party income-tax data without proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax.

Analysis: The demand was founded solely on information received from the Income Tax Department showing a discrepancy between receipts reflected in Form 26AS and the absence of service-tax returns. Such third-party data, without corroborative material establishing the statutory ingredients for the extended limitation period, does not establish deliberate suppression or mala fide intent. Mere non-payment or non-filing does not by itself amount to wilful default; the Department bears the burden to prove a positive act demonstrating intent to evade tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable, and the demand was time-barred. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.