https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776284 The HC held that the petitioner, who availed secondment services disclosed in their accounts, did not evade tax by fraud or wilful suppression despite the Apex Court ruling the services taxable. Since the dispute arose solely from differing interpretations of tax exigibility, the penalty under Section 74 CGST Act was not warranted. However, the petitioner must pay interest on the belated tax from the date of service availment. The case was remitted to the lower authority for fresh consideration, allowing the petition in part. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2025 07:04:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776284 The HC held that the petitioner, who availed secondment services disclosed in their accounts, did not evade tax by fraud or wilful suppression despite the Apex Court ruling the services taxable. Since the dispute arose solely from differing interpretations of tax exigibility, the penalty under Section 74 CGST Act was not warranted. However, the petitioner must pay interest on the belated tax from the date of service availment. The case was remitted to the lower authority for fresh consideration, allowing the petition in part. Case-Laws GST Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776284