https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433963 The Tribunal dismissed the appeals from both the assessee and the Department, affirming the demand for service tax on services provided by the assessee as both a sub-consultant and main consultant. It upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision, confirming the demand for the normal period of limitation and rejecting the extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal found no intent to evade tax by the assessee, as the disclosed income and services in ST-3 Returns indicated transparency. The decision was supported by SC precedents, validating the non-extension of the limitation period. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2026 12:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433963 The Tribunal dismissed the appeals from both the assessee and the Department, affirming the demand for service tax on services provided by the assessee as both a sub-consultant and main consultant. It upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision, confirming the demand for the normal period of limitation and rejecting the extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal found no intent to evade tax by the assessee, as the disclosed income and services in ST-3 Returns indicated transparency. The decision was supported by SC precedents, validating the non-extension of the limitation period. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 06 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433963