<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (12) TMI 1268 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416502</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for a show cause notice on sub-contractor work contract service tax was held unsustainable where the tax on the same consideration had already been paid by the main contractor. In the prevailing period, conflicting views existed on whether a sub-contractor had a separate tax liability once the principal contractor discharged the tax, and the later Larger Bench position settled the issue only subsequently. On that record, there was no material to establish fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax, and the Department failed to discharge the burden required for invoking the extended period. The notice was therefore barred by limitation and the demand did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2021 08:52:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 1268 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416502</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for a show cause notice on sub-contractor work contract service tax was held unsustainable where the tax on the same consideration had already been paid by the main contractor. In the prevailing period, conflicting views existed on whether a sub-contractor had a separate tax liability once the principal contractor discharged the tax, and the later Larger Bench position settled the issue only subsequently. On that record, there was no material to establish fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax, and the Department failed to discharge the burden required for invoking the extended period. The notice was therefore barred by limitation and the demand did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>