https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780474 One-time lease premium received during mall development was treated as construction-linked consideration, not recurring rent, so service tax under renting of immovable property with abatement was not sustainable. Alleged short payment based on ST-3 mismatch failed because reconciliation and a Chartered Accountant's certificate showed the tax was discharged in a subsequent period. Extra development charges did not attract a separate full-rate demand where tax had already been paid under another correct taxable head. Reverse charge demands on director remuneration, GTA services and security services also failed: director payments were treated as salary, no consignment note established GTA service, and the security-service evidence was not rebutted. In the absence of fraud or suppression, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780474 One-time lease premium received during mall development was treated as construction-linked consideration, not recurring rent, so service tax under renting of immovable property with abatement was not sustainable. Alleged short payment based on ST-3 mismatch failed because reconciliation and a Chartered Accountant's certificate showed the tax was discharged in a subsequent period. Extra development charges did not attract a separate full-rate demand where tax had already been paid under another correct taxable head. Reverse charge demands on director remuneration, GTA services and security services also failed: director payments were treated as salary, no consignment note established GTA service, and the security-service evidence was not rebutted. In the absence of fraud or suppression, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780474