https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775271 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, holding that the appellant, a State Government Department, did not engage in suppression, wilful misstatement, or collusion with intent to evade service tax on the sale of advertisement space. Although the merits favored the Revenue based on precedent from a similar case involving a government entity, the extended period for recovery under Section 73 was not invokable due to lack of intent to evade duty. Consequently, the appellant succeeded solely on limitation grounds, while the substantive liability for service tax was upheld. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:29:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775271 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, holding that the appellant, a State Government Department, did not engage in suppression, wilful misstatement, or collusion with intent to evade service tax on the sale of advertisement space. Although the merits favored the Revenue based on precedent from a similar case involving a government entity, the extended period for recovery under Section 73 was not invokable due to lack of intent to evade duty. Consequently, the appellant succeeded solely on limitation grounds, while the substantive liability for service tax was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775271