https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776812 CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that services were supplied to a state-owned company rather than a statutory authority, so Notification 25/2012-ST and its amendments did not apply. The Tribunal upheld invocation of the extended limitation period, finding prior High Court authority and evidence that service tax collections were later paid, indicating intent to short-pay. Penalties under Section 78 were sustained and challenges to penalties/late fees under Sections 77(1)(a) and 77(2) were not pursued. Consequently the departmental demand, interest and penalties were confirmed and the appeal rejected. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:04:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776812 CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that services were supplied to a state-owned company rather than a statutory authority, so Notification 25/2012-ST and its amendments did not apply. The Tribunal upheld invocation of the extended limitation period, finding prior High Court authority and evidence that service tax collections were later paid, indicating intent to short-pay. Penalties under Section 78 were sustained and challenges to penalties/late fees under Sections 77(1)(a) and 77(2) were not pursued. Consequently the departmental demand, interest and penalties were confirmed and the appeal rejected. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776812