https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365232 The Court held that the extended period for service tax recovery was correctly disallowed as there was no deliberate intent to evade tax by the respondent, a government undertaking. The Court also found the cross-objection maintainable under Section 35G(9) but dismissed it on merits as no new substantial question of law was presented regarding the liability to pay service tax. Both the Revenue's appeal and the respondent's cross-objection were dismissed, affirming the CESTAT's decisions. en-us Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Dec 2018 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365232 The Court held that the extended period for service tax recovery was correctly disallowed as there was no deliberate intent to evade tax by the respondent, a government undertaking. The Court also found the cross-objection maintainable under Section 35G(9) but dismissed it on merits as no new substantial question of law was presented regarding the liability to pay service tax. Both the Revenue's appeal and the respondent's cross-objection were dismissed, affirming the CESTAT's decisions. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365232