https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221029 The judgment concluded that the extended period for demanding Service tax could not be invoked as there was no wilful suppression of facts by the appellant. The liability of the appellant to pay Service tax under 'storage and warehousing service' was also dismissed as there was no clear service provider-service receiver relationship, and the auction income was considered a sale, not a service. As a result, the appellant was not liable to pay Service tax, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:36:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221029 The judgment concluded that the extended period for demanding Service tax could not be invoked as there was no wilful suppression of facts by the appellant. The liability of the appellant to pay Service tax under 'storage and warehousing service' was also dismissed as there was no clear service provider-service receiver relationship, and the auction income was considered a sale, not a service. As a result, the appellant was not liable to pay Service tax, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221029