https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438924 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues. The demand for service tax on the VAT amount collected by the holding-company was not justified as the appellant had already paid service tax on the service charges. The demand for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism before the introduction of Section 66A was set aside. The liability to pay service tax on book adjustments between associated enterprises was not applicable retrospectively. The demand raised invoking the extended period was deemed time-barred due to lack of evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant. The appeal succeeded on merits and limitation, with consequential relief granted. en-us Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jun 2023 09:11:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438924 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues. The demand for service tax on the VAT amount collected by the holding-company was not justified as the appellant had already paid service tax on the service charges. The demand for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism before the introduction of Section 66A was set aside. The liability to pay service tax on book adjustments between associated enterprises was not applicable retrospectively. The demand raised invoking the extended period was deemed time-barred due to lack of evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant. The appeal succeeded on merits and limitation, with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438924