https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779817 CESTAT held the extended limitation period inapplicable because the tax liability was discharged by the principal contractor, rendering the matter revenue neutral and negating any mala fide intent to evade tax. Where legal interpretation was debatable, extended limitation could not be invoked. The impugned demand for service tax was set aside, the Order-In-Original of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779817 CESTAT held the extended limitation period inapplicable because the tax liability was discharged by the principal contractor, rendering the matter revenue neutral and negating any mala fide intent to evade tax. Where legal interpretation was debatable, extended limitation could not be invoked. The impugned demand for service tax was set aside, the Order-In-Original of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779817