https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247577 The court quashed the CESTAT order directing a 25% pre-deposit of confirmed Service Tax, citing undue hardship concerns. The contracts were deemed a single turnkey project despite separate agreements. Allegations of wrongful tax benefits availing were disputed, arguing non-taxable services pre-2007. The extended limitation period invocation was challenged for lack of wilful suppression. Penalties and interest were imposed, contested under specific notifications. The court emphasized undue hardship encompasses strong appeal merits, leading to setting aside the order for reconsideration by the Tribunal, with restrictions on petitioner's financial transactions pending the decision. en-us Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 May 2014 12:28:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247577 The court quashed the CESTAT order directing a 25% pre-deposit of confirmed Service Tax, citing undue hardship concerns. The contracts were deemed a single turnkey project despite separate agreements. Allegations of wrongful tax benefits availing were disputed, arguing non-taxable services pre-2007. The extended limitation period invocation was challenged for lack of wilful suppression. Penalties and interest were imposed, contested under specific notifications. The court emphasized undue hardship encompasses strong appeal merits, leading to setting aside the order for reconsideration by the Tribunal, with restrictions on petitioner's financial transactions pending the decision. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247577