https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777514 CESTAT held the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the assessees, being government departments and state-owned undertakings, lacked intent to evade service tax; consequently the demand for the extended period was set aside and the normal period demand could not be sustained. The tribunal found the entities did not provide "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency" services to the state bus undertaking, so no service tax liability arose. Penalties under ss.76-78 were dropped with relief under s.80. Appeals by the assessees were allowed and the revenue's appeal dismissed. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:13:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777514 CESTAT held the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the assessees, being government departments and state-owned undertakings, lacked intent to evade service tax; consequently the demand for the extended period was set aside and the normal period demand could not be sustained. The tribunal found the entities did not provide "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency" services to the state bus undertaking, so no service tax liability arose. Penalties under ss.76-78 were dropped with relief under s.80. Appeals by the assessees were allowed and the revenue's appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777514