https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763263 The tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, dismissing the appellant's challenge against the service tax demands. It affirmed the tax department's position that the appellant was liable for service tax on commissions exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, rejecting claims for exemption under Notifications No. 32/2012 and 33/2012-ST. The tribunal validated the use of Form 26AS as crucial evidence and ruled that the extended period of limitation was applicable, given the lack of malafide intent. The tribunal concluded that the demands were correctly calculated, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to contest the tax department's claims. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:42:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763263 The tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, dismissing the appellant's challenge against the service tax demands. It affirmed the tax department's position that the appellant was liable for service tax on commissions exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, rejecting claims for exemption under Notifications No. 32/2012 and 33/2012-ST. The tribunal validated the use of Form 26AS as crucial evidence and ruled that the extended period of limitation was applicable, given the lack of malafide intent. The tribunal concluded that the demands were correctly calculated, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to contest the tax department's claims. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763263