https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754503 The CESTAT Chennai held that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof in classifying construction services to educational institutions as Works Contract Service during March 2008-2011. The tribunal ruled that educational institutions collecting fees do not qualify as entities "primarily for commerce or industry" purposes, as commercial activities require profit as the primary aim. The demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was rejected. Additionally, the tribunal found no willful suppression justifying extended limitation period, noting that mere failure to register and pay duty without positive fraudulent acts does not constitute suppression. The appeal was allowed and the original order was set aside. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754503 The CESTAT Chennai held that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof in classifying construction services to educational institutions as Works Contract Service during March 2008-2011. The tribunal ruled that educational institutions collecting fees do not qualify as entities "primarily for commerce or industry" purposes, as commercial activities require profit as the primary aim. The demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was rejected. Additionally, the tribunal found no willful suppression justifying extended limitation period, noting that mere failure to register and pay duty without positive fraudulent acts does not constitute suppression. The appeal was allowed and the original order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754503