https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383562 Contracts and invoices showed that payment was linked to work executed on a quantity or piece-rate basis, not to the number of workers deployed, so the activity was not classifiable as manpower supply for the period before 31.03.2010. The principal's deposit of ESI and provident fund contributions did not, by itself, prove manpower supply because those statutory obligations could be discharged by the principal employer. As the record did not show suppression, falsification, or a colourable device, the extended period of limitation was also unavailable. The demand, interest, and penalties were therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383562 Contracts and invoices showed that payment was linked to work executed on a quantity or piece-rate basis, not to the number of workers deployed, so the activity was not classifiable as manpower supply for the period before 31.03.2010. The principal's deposit of ESI and provident fund contributions did not, by itself, prove manpower supply because those statutory obligations could be discharged by the principal employer. As the record did not show suppression, falsification, or a colourable device, the extended period of limitation was also unavailable. The demand, interest, and penalties were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383562