https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775905 The CESTAT Hyderabad allowed the appeal in part, holding that the service tax demand based solely on discrepancies between ITRs/26AS and ST3 returns was unsustainable without independent investigation into the nature and value of services. The extended period of limitation for issuing the notice was not invokable as the SCN was issued beyond the permissible time without substantiated grounds of suppression or withholding of information. The tribunal found no deliberate intent to evade service tax, referencing SC precedent that mere non-payment does not imply suppression. Demands where payment was not contested were upheld, while other demands and penalties were set aside. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775905 The CESTAT Hyderabad allowed the appeal in part, holding that the service tax demand based solely on discrepancies between ITRs/26AS and ST3 returns was unsustainable without independent investigation into the nature and value of services. The extended period of limitation for issuing the notice was not invokable as the SCN was issued beyond the permissible time without substantiated grounds of suppression or withholding of information. The tribunal found no deliberate intent to evade service tax, referencing SC precedent that mere non-payment does not imply suppression. Demands where payment was not contested were upheld, while other demands and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775905