https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365329 The appeal was filed against a service tax demand for "Renting of Immovable Property" exceeding the normal one-year period. The penalty under Section 78 was dropped due to the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite conflicting decisions on taxability, the extended period was invoked as the duty was not deposited. However, based on previous Tribunal decisions emphasizing a bona fide belief in tax disputes, the demand was set aside as time-barred. The judgment underscores the significance of assessing willful misstatement, suppression of facts, and conflicting decisions in determining the validity of extended periods for tax demands. en-us Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:13:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365329 The appeal was filed against a service tax demand for "Renting of Immovable Property" exceeding the normal one-year period. The penalty under Section 78 was dropped due to the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite conflicting decisions on taxability, the extended period was invoked as the duty was not deposited. However, based on previous Tribunal decisions emphasizing a bona fide belief in tax disputes, the demand was set aside as time-barred. The judgment underscores the significance of assessing willful misstatement, suppression of facts, and conflicting decisions in determining the validity of extended periods for tax demands. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365329