https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464541 CESTAT (Allahabad)-AT held that the Larger Bench ruling that a sub-contractor remains liable for service tax even if the main contractor discharged tax on the activity is binding and applies; the appellant, as sub-contractor, is liable on merits. However, invocation of the extended five-year limitation period was rejected because there was no suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement and the issue involved bona fide interpretational differences; accordingly demands are confined to the normal limitation period. The matter was remanded for re-computation of liability for the admissible period. Appeal partly allowed. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 15:54:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464541 CESTAT (Allahabad)-AT held that the Larger Bench ruling that a sub-contractor remains liable for service tax even if the main contractor discharged tax on the activity is binding and applies; the appellant, as sub-contractor, is liable on merits. However, invocation of the extended five-year limitation period was rejected because there was no suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement and the issue involved bona fide interpretational differences; accordingly demands are confined to the normal limitation period. The matter was remanded for re-computation of liability for the admissible period. Appeal partly allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464541