https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416852 Service tax valuation for wharfage charges was confined to the actual amount charged in the taxable transaction, where invoices reflected 20% of the notified rate and no further consideration from the recipient was shown. A rebate granted by the port authority under a separate agreement, linked to capital expenditure in that distinct arrangement, did not become additional consideration for the service tax valuation. The alternative valuation method was therefore not triggered, and enhancement to 100% of the notified rate was unwarranted. The extended limitation period also failed because returns disclosed the adopted value and the department was aware of the agreement through intimation and audits, so suppression with intent to evade tax was not established. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2022 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416852 Service tax valuation for wharfage charges was confined to the actual amount charged in the taxable transaction, where invoices reflected 20% of the notified rate and no further consideration from the recipient was shown. A rebate granted by the port authority under a separate agreement, linked to capital expenditure in that distinct arrangement, did not become additional consideration for the service tax valuation. The alternative valuation method was therefore not triggered, and enhancement to 100% of the notified rate was unwarranted. The extended limitation period also failed because returns disclosed the adopted value and the department was aware of the agreement through intimation and audits, so suppression with intent to evade tax was not established. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416852