https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752754 A sub-contractor was held separately liable to pay service tax even though the main contractor had discharged tax on the full value, following the Board's clarification that such liability applies independently. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the record showed conflicting views on the tax position during the relevant period, the issue was already within departmental knowledge, and no suppression of facts with intent to evade tax was established. Penalty was also held unsustainable for the same reason. The demand survived only for the normal period, while the extended-period demand and penalty were set aside. en-us Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 May 2024 08:33:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752754 A sub-contractor was held separately liable to pay service tax even though the main contractor had discharged tax on the full value, following the Board's clarification that such liability applies independently. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the record showed conflicting views on the tax position during the relevant period, the issue was already within departmental knowledge, and no suppression of facts with intent to evade tax was established. Penalty was also held unsustainable for the same reason. The demand survived only for the normal period, while the extended-period demand and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752754