https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760946 The CESTAT Allahabad upheld service tax demand and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant knowingly provided taxable services, short-paid service tax despite issuing invoices showing tax payable and collecting from recipients, failed to file timely ST-3 returns, and suppressed information to evade taxes. The extended limitation period invocation under Section 73(1) was justified. The appellant's inconsistent submissions - initially not contesting merits but only quantification, then challenging applicable rates without substantiation - were rejected. The First Appellate Authority's order was upheld. en-us Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:57:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760946 The CESTAT Allahabad upheld service tax demand and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant knowingly provided taxable services, short-paid service tax despite issuing invoices showing tax payable and collecting from recipients, failed to file timely ST-3 returns, and suppressed information to evade taxes. The extended limitation period invocation under Section 73(1) was justified. The appellant's inconsistent submissions - initially not contesting merits but only quantification, then challenging applicable rates without substantiation - were rejected. The First Appellate Authority's order was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760946