https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263220 The Tribunal held that the activities of dealers of motor vehicles did not constitute Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for service tax purposes based on the clarification provided in the Pagariya Auto Center case. The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not applicable as there was a bona fide doubt regarding the liability of the appellants. The appellants were deemed liable for tax, interest, and penalties for the normal limitation period, and the matter was remanded for re-determination of their liability in line with the clarifications from the Pagariya Auto Center case. en-us Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:55:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263220 The Tribunal held that the activities of dealers of motor vehicles did not constitute Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) for service tax purposes based on the clarification provided in the Pagariya Auto Center case. The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not applicable as there was a bona fide doubt regarding the liability of the appellants. The appellants were deemed liable for tax, interest, and penalties for the normal limitation period, and the matter was remanded for re-determination of their liability in line with the clarifications from the Pagariya Auto Center case. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263220