https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783713 The dominant issue was whether retail sale of franchisor's products could be excluded from the taxable value of beauty parlour services. The Tribunal held exclusion was unavailable because the appellant failed to produce prescribed invoices/bills or VAT registration/payment evidence, and the manual bills were rightly rejected; consequently, the entire consideration was treated as taxable service value, ascertainable from franchise fee computations under the agreement, and the service tax demand was sustained. On limitation, suppression with intent to evade was inferred from registration coupled with non-payment and non-filing of returns despite contractual responsibility; accordingly, the extended period was upheld. Interest under s.75 was consequentially affirmed, penalties under s.77(2) were upheld, and s.78 penalty was modified; the appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783713 The dominant issue was whether retail sale of franchisor's products could be excluded from the taxable value of beauty parlour services. The Tribunal held exclusion was unavailable because the appellant failed to produce prescribed invoices/bills or VAT registration/payment evidence, and the manual bills were rightly rejected; consequently, the entire consideration was treated as taxable service value, ascertainable from franchise fee computations under the agreement, and the service tax demand was sustained. On limitation, suppression with intent to evade was inferred from registration coupled with non-payment and non-filing of returns despite contractual responsibility; accordingly, the extended period was upheld. Interest under s.75 was consequentially affirmed, penalties under s.77(2) were upheld, and s.78 penalty was modified; the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783713