https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782826 The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of service tax, interest and penalty. It held that the demand, founded solely on differences between gross receipts in ST-3 returns and income tax returns, lacked a legally sustainable basis, as the Department failed to identify or determine any specific taxable service under Section 65B(44) read with Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal further held that mere non-filing of ST-3 returns, particularly when the appellant's business had been shut since 2014, could not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the entire demand was held time-barred and unsustainable. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782826 The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of service tax, interest and penalty. It held that the demand, founded solely on differences between gross receipts in ST-3 returns and income tax returns, lacked a legally sustainable basis, as the Department failed to identify or determine any specific taxable service under Section 65B(44) read with Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal further held that mere non-filing of ST-3 returns, particularly when the appellant's business had been shut since 2014, could not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the entire demand was held time-barred and unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782826