https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759303 CESTAT Allahabad held that the appellant correctly paid service tax on cleaning services but improperly claimed deductions for other services, as gross receipts constitute taxable value under Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. However, the extended limitation period was improperly invoked since authorities failed to establish suppression with intent to evade tax. The demand for service tax, interest, and penalties under Section 78 was set aside on limitation grounds, while late payment fees for 65-day delayed ST-3 return filing was upheld as statutory obligation. Appeal partially allowed. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Sep 2024 08:11:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759303 CESTAT Allahabad held that the appellant correctly paid service tax on cleaning services but improperly claimed deductions for other services, as gross receipts constitute taxable value under Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. However, the extended limitation period was improperly invoked since authorities failed to establish suppression with intent to evade tax. The demand for service tax, interest, and penalties under Section 78 was set aside on limitation grounds, while late payment fees for 65-day delayed ST-3 return filing was upheld as statutory obligation. Appeal partially allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759303