https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329639 The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the show cause notice and the order dated 12 November 2012, and set aside the instruction/circular dated 26 July 2010 to the extent it stated that service tax should be levied on the total composite amount if segregation is not possible. The petitioner was entitled to a refund of the amounts deposited along with interest. The court held that the extended period of limitation was erroneously invoked, and the authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. The court also clarified that activities such as writing articles, anchoring TV shows, and playing cricket in IPL did not attract service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' or 'Business Support Service'. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329639 The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the show cause notice and the order dated 12 November 2012, and set aside the instruction/circular dated 26 July 2010 to the extent it stated that service tax should be levied on the total composite amount if segregation is not possible. The petitioner was entitled to a refund of the amounts deposited along with interest. The court held that the extended period of limitation was erroneously invoked, and the authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. The court also clarified that activities such as writing articles, anchoring TV shows, and playing cricket in IPL did not attract service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' or 'Business Support Service'. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329639