https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436409 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order confirming the demand of service tax under two different categories for a single activity, citing that service tax cannot be imposed under multiple heads for one service. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no deliberate suppression of facts to evade tax, especially considering the appellant's status as a government company. Consequently, the entire demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the appellant's appeal was allowed on both grounds. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:57:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436409 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order confirming the demand of service tax under two different categories for a single activity, citing that service tax cannot be imposed under multiple heads for one service. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no deliberate suppression of facts to evade tax, especially considering the appellant's status as a government company. Consequently, the entire demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the appellant's appeal was allowed on both grounds. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436409