https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369241 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant in a tax dispute case. The demand, initially at Rs. 1,28,54,902, was reduced to Rs. 94,57,303, and further decreased to Rs. 12,64,097 due to lack of proper investigation and diligence. The Tribunal ruled that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and the tax demand on undisclosed receipts lacked statutory support, leading to the appellant's success in challenging the demands. The appellant was entitled to a refund of excess amounts paid and penalties deposited, as the service tax levy in composite contracts was deemed ultra vires. en-us Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:56:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369241 The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant in a tax dispute case. The demand, initially at Rs. 1,28,54,902, was reduced to Rs. 94,57,303, and further decreased to Rs. 12,64,097 due to lack of proper investigation and diligence. The Tribunal ruled that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and the tax demand on undisclosed receipts lacked statutory support, leading to the appellant's success in challenging the demands. The appellant was entitled to a refund of excess amounts paid and penalties deposited, as the service tax levy in composite contracts was deemed ultra vires. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369241