https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87629 HC dismissed the writ petition challenging service tax liability. The petitioner, a subcontractor, failed to produce requisite documents and challenge the tax order within the prescribed three-month statutory period under Section 35(b) of the Central Excise Act and Section 86 of the Finance Act. The court found the petitioner liable for service tax despite claims of potential double taxation, as the adjudicating authority had already considered tax deposits by principal contractors. The writ application was filed significantly beyond the limitation period, rendering the judicial review inappropriate and procedurally unsustainable. en-us Tue, 22 Apr 2025 08:31:22 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 08:31:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87629 HC dismissed the writ petition challenging service tax liability. The petitioner, a subcontractor, failed to produce requisite documents and challenge the tax order within the prescribed three-month statutory period under Section 35(b) of the Central Excise Act and Section 86 of the Finance Act. The court found the petitioner liable for service tax despite claims of potential double taxation, as the adjudicating authority had already considered tax deposits by principal contractors. The writ application was filed significantly beyond the limitation period, rendering the judicial review inappropriate and procedurally unsustainable. Highlights Service Tax Tue, 22 Apr 2025 08:31:22 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87629