https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782684 The CESTAT allowed the appeal of the sub-contractor and set aside the demand of service tax, interest and penalties. While acknowledging the Larger Bench ruling that sub-contractors are liable to service tax even if the principal has discharged tax, the Tribunal declined to examine taxability prior to 16.05.2008 in detail, holding the demand barred by limitation. It found no evidence in the SCN of wilful suppression or intent to evade, noting the prevailing industry practice, divergent interpretations of law and the appellant's non-declaration in ST-3 returns based on its bona fide understanding, thereby invalidating the invocation of the extended period. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782684 The CESTAT allowed the appeal of the sub-contractor and set aside the demand of service tax, interest and penalties. While acknowledging the Larger Bench ruling that sub-contractors are liable to service tax even if the principal has discharged tax, the Tribunal declined to examine taxability prior to 16.05.2008 in detail, holding the demand barred by limitation. It found no evidence in the SCN of wilful suppression or intent to evade, noting the prevailing industry practice, divergent interpretations of law and the appellant's non-declaration in ST-3 returns based on its bona fide understanding, thereby invalidating the invocation of the extended period. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782684