https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768145 The HC upheld CESTAT's decision that the extended limitation period of five years under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against the respondent sub-contractor. The court determined that non-payment of service tax during 2004-2007 was based on a bona fide belief due to legal uncertainty and prior tribunal decisions suggesting sub-contractors weren't liable when main contractors paid the tax. The court found no evidence of fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement that would justify extending the standard thirty-month limitation period. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Apr 2025 08:31:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768145 The HC upheld CESTAT's decision that the extended limitation period of five years under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against the respondent sub-contractor. The court determined that non-payment of service tax during 2004-2007 was based on a bona fide belief due to legal uncertainty and prior tribunal decisions suggesting sub-contractors weren't liable when main contractors paid the tax. The court found no evidence of fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement that would justify extending the standard thirty-month limitation period. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws GST Thu, 27 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768145