https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89798 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand against a goods transport agency. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely based on discrepancies between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/ITR data, as established in precedent cases. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism under Notification 30/2012-ST, making the recipient liable for tax payment. Services provided to other GTAs were exempt under entry 22 of Notification 25/2012-ST. The department incorrectly applied best judgment assessment despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability. The original order was passed ex-parte despite appellant's timely reply to show cause notice. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:35:33 +0530 Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:35:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89798 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand against a goods transport agency. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely based on discrepancies between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/ITR data, as established in precedent cases. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism under Notification 30/2012-ST, making the recipient liable for tax payment. Services provided to other GTAs were exempt under entry 22 of Notification 25/2012-ST. The department incorrectly applied best judgment assessment despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability. The original order was passed ex-parte despite appellant's timely reply to show cause notice. Highlights Service Tax Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:35:33 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89798