https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763783 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand for July 2012 to March 2015. The appellant sub-contractor had regularly filed ST-3 returns disclosing all service details and exemptions claimed. The tribunal found no suppression of facts or willful misstatement as all necessary details were disclosed in periodic returns. At the relevant time, conflicting tribunal decisions existed regarding sub-contractor service tax liability, which was only settled by a larger bench in 2019. Since no mala fide intent was established, the extended period of demand could not be invoked, resulting in the demand being set aside. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:30:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763783 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand for July 2012 to March 2015. The appellant sub-contractor had regularly filed ST-3 returns disclosing all service details and exemptions claimed. The tribunal found no suppression of facts or willful misstatement as all necessary details were disclosed in periodic returns. At the relevant time, conflicting tribunal decisions existed regarding sub-contractor service tax liability, which was only settled by a larger bench in 2019. Since no mala fide intent was established, the extended period of demand could not be invoked, resulting in the demand being set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763783