Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax recovery for 2011-2012. The demand for April-September 2011 was time-barred, exceeding even the extended five-year limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. For October 2011-March 2012, the Tribunal found insufficient grounds to invoke extended limitation, following SC precedent that suppression of facts must be willful and demonstrate clear intent to evade tax. The court emphasized that mere suppression alone is insufficient - it must be deliberate and accompanied by intent to evade payment, similar to other serious infractions like fraud or collusion. The service tax demands for both periods were invalidated and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
