https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450675 The CESTAT Hyderabad set aside a service tax demand notice invoking extended period of limitation against a construction company. The tribunal found no deliberate tax evasion regarding Subansiri Dam construction as the appellant believed service tax was already deducted by the main contractor. For BMRCL elevated structure construction, the demand was invalid under Finance Act Section 73(3) since tax and interest were paid without dispute after exemption withdrawal. Regarding royalty payments to state government under reverse charge mechanism, the tribunal noted the matter was sub-judice before a 9-judge SC bench and involved purely interpretational issues without fraud or misstatement, making the extended limitation period inapplicable. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 10 Mar 2024 16:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450675 The CESTAT Hyderabad set aside a service tax demand notice invoking extended period of limitation against a construction company. The tribunal found no deliberate tax evasion regarding Subansiri Dam construction as the appellant believed service tax was already deducted by the main contractor. For BMRCL elevated structure construction, the demand was invalid under Finance Act Section 73(3) since tax and interest were paid without dispute after exemption withdrawal. Regarding royalty payments to state government under reverse charge mechanism, the tribunal noted the matter was sub-judice before a 9-judge SC bench and involved purely interpretational issues without fraud or misstatement, making the extended limitation period inapplicable. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450675