https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310952 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked without establishing wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax payment. The appellant, a service recipient who failed to deposit service tax on imported services, successfully challenged the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal found that mere non-disclosure in service tax returns without proven intent to evade tax is insufficient to invoke extended limitation. Following precedent from Pushpam Pharmaceuticals, the Tribunal emphasized that deliberate evasion must be established beyond mere suppression of facts. The appeal was allowed and the Commissioner's order was set aside. en-us Fri, 25 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:09:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310952 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked without establishing wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax payment. The appellant, a service recipient who failed to deposit service tax on imported services, successfully challenged the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal found that mere non-disclosure in service tax returns without proven intent to evade tax is insufficient to invoke extended limitation. Following precedent from Pushpam Pharmaceuticals, the Tribunal emphasized that deliberate evasion must be established beyond mere suppression of facts. The appeal was allowed and the Commissioner's order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310952