https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32160 CESTAT, Bangalore - AT allowed the appeal, holding that reimbursements incurred by a service provider on behalf of a client are not part of the gross receipts taxable under Section 67 and thus are not subject to Service Tax. The tribunal found the SCN wrongly demanded tax based on balance-sheet entries; appellants had been filing returns and paying tax, and there was no suppression or intention to evade duty, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Appeal allowed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Nov 2025 16:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32160 CESTAT, Bangalore - AT allowed the appeal, holding that reimbursements incurred by a service provider on behalf of a client are not part of the gross receipts taxable under Section 67 and thus are not subject to Service Tax. The tribunal found the SCN wrongly demanded tax based on balance-sheet entries; appellants had been filing returns and paying tax, and there was no suppression or intention to evade duty, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Appeal allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32160