https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261750 Service tax liability under architect service required the provider to be a person whose name was entered in the statutory register of architects under the Architects Act, 1972; the word "includes" did not remove that registration . A proprietary concern was treated as the same entity as its proprietor, and because the appellant was neither an architect nor registered, the demand on merits was not sustainable. The demand was also time-barred because it was raised beyond the normal period on a debatable interpretation of the charging definition, without suppression of facts or mala fide intent, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:37:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261750 Service tax liability under architect service required the provider to be a person whose name was entered in the statutory register of architects under the Architects Act, 1972; the word "includes" did not remove that registration . A proprietary concern was treated as the same entity as its proprietor, and because the appellant was neither an architect nor registered, the demand on merits was not sustainable. The demand was also time-barred because it was raised beyond the normal period on a debatable interpretation of the charging definition, without suppression of facts or mala fide intent, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261750