https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756391 CESTAT New Delhi set aside the Commissioner's order dated 30.12.2016 in a service tax case. The tribunal held that extended limitation period under section 73(1) proviso of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked without proving willful suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax. The department failed to demonstrate appellant's intent to evade payment despite non-disclosure of correct service tax liability in returns for services to STPI units, US entities, and SEZ units during 2006-09. The tribunal found appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability interpretation, citing Supreme Court precedent that disputes involving legal interpretation don't justify extended limitation. Appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2024 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756391 CESTAT New Delhi set aside the Commissioner's order dated 30.12.2016 in a service tax case. The tribunal held that extended limitation period under section 73(1) proviso of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked without proving willful suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax. The department failed to demonstrate appellant's intent to evade payment despite non-disclosure of correct service tax liability in returns for services to STPI units, US entities, and SEZ units during 2006-09. The tribunal found appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability interpretation, citing Supreme Court precedent that disputes involving legal interpretation don't justify extended limitation. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756391