https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360567 The impugned order was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the dropping of the demand by the appellant due to a discrepancy in expenses shown in the balance sheet and ST-3 returns. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, citing non-conformance to taxable service description and time-barred audit as grounds for the decision. The case revolved around issues such as identification of service providers, tax liability on services, interpretation of definitions, and the legal burden associated with consignment notes and invoices. en-us Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360567 The impugned order was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the dropping of the demand by the appellant due to a discrepancy in expenses shown in the balance sheet and ST-3 returns. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, citing non-conformance to taxable service description and time-barred audit as grounds for the decision. The case revolved around issues such as identification of service providers, tax liability on services, interpretation of definitions, and the legal burden associated with consignment notes and invoices. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360567