https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775009 The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the service tax demand on Business Auxiliary Service. The tribunal held that no contractual relationship existed between the appellant (SPV) and RDA, which is essential for any taxable service under section 66B(49) of the Finance Act. The appellant never received the disputed amount from RDA, which was eventually written off in FY 2021-22, as evidenced by chartered accountant certificate. The department incorrectly classified operations and maintenance activities as Business Support Service instead of repairs and maintenance. Regarding time limitation, the show cause notice dated 11.04.2017 covering period 2011-12 to 2015-16 was beyond normal limitation period. The appellant had disclosed all facts in financial records and regularly paid service tax on commercial users. No suppression was established by the department, and the appellant held bonafide belief that no service tax liability existed vis-à-vis RDA since no service was rendered nor money received from them. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775009 The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the service tax demand on Business Auxiliary Service. The tribunal held that no contractual relationship existed between the appellant (SPV) and RDA, which is essential for any taxable service under section 66B(49) of the Finance Act. The appellant never received the disputed amount from RDA, which was eventually written off in FY 2021-22, as evidenced by chartered accountant certificate. The department incorrectly classified operations and maintenance activities as Business Support Service instead of repairs and maintenance. Regarding time limitation, the show cause notice dated 11.04.2017 covering period 2011-12 to 2015-16 was beyond normal limitation period. The appellant had disclosed all facts in financial records and regularly paid service tax on commercial users. No suppression was established by the department, and the appellant held bonafide belief that no service tax liability existed vis-à-vis RDA since no service was rendered nor money received from them. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775009