https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374863 The appellant, an authorized car dealer, was in a dispute regarding the liability to pay service tax for providing services to financial entities to facilitate car loans. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the extended period of limitation did not apply as they had paid service tax from the date the definition of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) was amended in 2004. The judgment emphasized the importance of analyzing transactional documents to determine the classification of services provided. As there was no deliberate default in paying service tax, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 07:04:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374863 The appellant, an authorized car dealer, was in a dispute regarding the liability to pay service tax for providing services to financial entities to facilitate car loans. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the extended period of limitation did not apply as they had paid service tax from the date the definition of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) was amended in 2004. The judgment emphasized the importance of analyzing transactional documents to determine the classification of services provided. As there was no deliberate default in paying service tax, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374863