https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773618 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand raised due to mismatch between ST-3 and 26AS/ITR returns. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely on basis of such differences without clear identification of service provider, recipient and consideration. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism liability on recipients, not appellant. Services to other GTAs were exempt under Notification 25/2012-ST. Department incorrectly applied best judgment method despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit. Extended limitation period was not applicable as appellant acted in bonafide belief without suppression. en-us Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:35:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773618 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand raised due to mismatch between ST-3 and 26AS/ITR returns. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely on basis of such differences without clear identification of service provider, recipient and consideration. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism liability on recipients, not appellant. Services to other GTAs were exempt under Notification 25/2012-ST. Department incorrectly applied best judgment method despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit. Extended limitation period was not applicable as appellant acted in bonafide belief without suppression. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773618