https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447270 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal of a state road transport corporation against service tax demand for advertising space rental from May 2006. The tribunal held that since the corporation's agent had already deposited the demanded service tax amount of Rs. 16,19,883 in government treasury, the same could not be demanded again. The court found the extended limitation period invocation unsustainable as the state undertaking had no intention to evade tax. The demand for service tax, interest and penalty was set aside, with the tribunal ruling the impugned order legally unsustainable on both merit and limitation grounds. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Dec 2023 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447270 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal of a state road transport corporation against service tax demand for advertising space rental from May 2006. The tribunal held that since the corporation's agent had already deposited the demanded service tax amount of Rs. 16,19,883 in government treasury, the same could not be demanded again. The court found the extended limitation period invocation unsustainable as the state undertaking had no intention to evade tax. The demand for service tax, interest and penalty was set aside, with the tribunal ruling the impugned order legally unsustainable on both merit and limitation grounds. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 21 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447270