https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753696 In a composite construction classification dispute, the extended limitation period for service tax was held unsustainable because the appellant had disclosed the nature of services, paid tax under the then-prevailing classification with abatement, and there was no proved suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement. The demand for the extended period was therefore set aside. For the normal period, once the activity was treated as works contract service, tax had to be quantified on the composition basis rather than on the full gross amount, with credit for tax already paid. The normal-period demand survived only to the extent of the differential amount, and penalties were not sustainable. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jun 2024 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753696 In a composite construction classification dispute, the extended limitation period for service tax was held unsustainable because the appellant had disclosed the nature of services, paid tax under the then-prevailing classification with abatement, and there was no proved suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement. The demand for the extended period was therefore set aside. For the normal period, once the activity was treated as works contract service, tax had to be quantified on the composition basis rather than on the full gross amount, with credit for tax already paid. The normal-period demand survived only to the extent of the differential amount, and penalties were not sustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 03 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753696