https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208069 Retrospective validating amendments cannot be used to create a fresh service tax liability where no demand notice was issued and no proceeding was pending under the original levy. The Kerala High Court noted that Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 were enacted to validate the earlier service tax regime after the Supreme Court ruling, but that validation did not authorise a new demand against the assessee in the absence of any prior notice or subsisting action. On that basis, the impugned demand could not stand and was liable to be quashed. en-us Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 May 2012 12:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208069 Retrospective validating amendments cannot be used to create a fresh service tax liability where no demand notice was issued and no proceeding was pending under the original levy. The Kerala High Court noted that Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 were enacted to validate the earlier service tax regime after the Supreme Court ruling, but that validation did not authorise a new demand against the assessee in the absence of any prior notice or subsisting action. On that basis, the impugned demand could not stand and was liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208069