https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781475 CESTAT (Chandigarh - AT) held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified because "Renting of Immovable Property" was not a taxable service when the lease was executed on 29.08.2007, so suppression with intent to evade tax could not be alleged. The retrospective amendment later making such renting taxable had been subject to HC stays. Relying on HC precedent that an unsustainable extended-period demand nullifies normal-period demand, the impugned order was set aside on limitation grounds and the appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781475 CESTAT (Chandigarh - AT) held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified because "Renting of Immovable Property" was not a taxable service when the lease was executed on 29.08.2007, so suppression with intent to evade tax could not be alleged. The retrospective amendment later making such renting taxable had been subject to HC stays. Relying on HC precedent that an unsustainable extended-period demand nullifies normal-period demand, the impugned order was set aside on limitation grounds and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781475