https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349812 Premises let for residential occupation did not become taxable as renting of immovable property service merely because the lease also referred to incidental personal office use; the lease had to be read as a whole, and incidental work from the premises did not change its essential residential character. The service tax demand therefore failed on merits. Where the levy itself was subject to substantial litigation and the legal position was not free from doubt, invocation of the extended limitation period was not justified, and the penalty could not be sustained. The demand was held time-barred and the consequential penalties were set aside. en-us Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349812 Premises let for residential occupation did not become taxable as renting of immovable property service merely because the lease also referred to incidental personal office use; the lease had to be read as a whole, and incidental work from the premises did not change its essential residential character. The service tax demand therefore failed on merits. Where the levy itself was subject to substantial litigation and the legal position was not free from doubt, invocation of the extended limitation period was not justified, and the penalty could not be sustained. The demand was held time-barred and the consequential penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349812