https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449983 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against a sub-contractor where non-payment of service tax arose from a bona fide interpretational dispute and there was no deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The Court noted that certificates showing tax payment by the main contractor were available, the assessee's case raised a real concern of double taxation, and the sub-contractor's liability remained uncertain until a later larger Bench ruling. In these circumstances, the omission in the ST-3 return did not amount to suppression, so recovery was confined to the normal period. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Feb 2024 07:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449983 The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against a sub-contractor where non-payment of service tax arose from a bona fide interpretational dispute and there was no deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The Court noted that certificates showing tax payment by the main contractor were available, the assessee's case raised a real concern of double taxation, and the sub-contractor's liability remained uncertain until a later larger Bench ruling. In these circumstances, the omission in the ST-3 return did not amount to suppression, so recovery was confined to the normal period. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449983