https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774004 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand on additional license fees/spectrum charges. The tribunal held that the demand was barred by limitation as extended period was wrongly invoked, noting the appellant regularly filed returns without suppressing facts and completed service tax audit raised no demand. The Rs. 222.1 crores additional license fee pertained to FY 2008-09 to 2013-14 when service tax was not leviable on such fees, not FY 2016-17 as claimed. Additionally, point of taxation had not arisen as no invoice or document was issued by Government demanding payment. en-us Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:27:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774004 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand on additional license fees/spectrum charges. The tribunal held that the demand was barred by limitation as extended period was wrongly invoked, noting the appellant regularly filed returns without suppressing facts and completed service tax audit raised no demand. The Rs. 222.1 crores additional license fee pertained to FY 2008-09 to 2013-14 when service tax was not leviable on such fees, not FY 2016-17 as claimed. Additionally, point of taxation had not arisen as no invoice or document was issued by Government demanding payment. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774004