https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751832 Service tax could not be confirmed again against the service provider where the same works contract services had already been taxed and paid by the recipient under reverse charge, because double recovery on identical taxable services was impermissible. The extended limitation period was also unavailable since the relevant receipts were already disclosed in income tax records, negating suppression or wilful misstatement for evasion. On those grounds, the impugned demand and related penalty consequences were set aside. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2025 15:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751832 Service tax could not be confirmed again against the service provider where the same works contract services had already been taxed and paid by the recipient under reverse charge, because double recovery on identical taxable services was impermissible. The extended limitation period was also unavailable since the relevant receipts were already disclosed in income tax records, negating suppression or wilful misstatement for evasion. On those grounds, the impugned demand and related penalty consequences were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751832