https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353171 VCES declarations could not be reopened absent substantial misdeclaration, and a mere change in classification was insufficient. The Revenue relied on VAT returns describing the activity as works contract service and sought to reclassify the declared service from construction of complex service, but the declared consideration matched the amount disclosed and no contract or other document showed suppression of service tax liability. Because the scheme was meant to encourage voluntary compliance, disturbance of a declaration required clear evidence of non-disclosure. On these facts, denial of abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST and the demand based on reclassification were unjustified and could not be sustained. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353171 VCES declarations could not be reopened absent substantial misdeclaration, and a mere change in classification was insufficient. The Revenue relied on VAT returns describing the activity as works contract service and sought to reclassify the declared service from construction of complex service, but the declared consideration matched the amount disclosed and no contract or other document showed suppression of service tax liability. Because the scheme was meant to encourage voluntary compliance, disturbance of a declaration required clear evidence of non-disclosure. On these facts, denial of abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST and the demand based on reclassification were unjustified and could not be sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353171