https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269515 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, an individual service provider, in an appeal against the demand for service tax under the Business Auxiliary services category for the period 2004-05, 2005-06. The judge found that the appellant, being an individual, did not fall under the definition of "commercial concern" as per relevant case law. As there was no evidence of suppression to avoid tax payment, the appellant was deemed not liable for service tax during the mentioned period. The appeal was allowed, and the order demanding service tax was set aside. en-us Tue, 26 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269515 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, an individual service provider, in an appeal against the demand for service tax under the Business Auxiliary services category for the period 2004-05, 2005-06. The judge found that the appellant, being an individual, did not fall under the definition of "commercial concern" as per relevant case law. As there was no evidence of suppression to avoid tax payment, the appellant was deemed not liable for service tax during the mentioned period. The appeal was allowed, and the order demanding service tax was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 26 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269515