https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783925 Demand of service tax on an amount paid under a settlement to a municipal body was examined as to whether it constituted consideration for a "declared service" under s.66E(e) or merely outstanding rent. Since the municipal body treated the sum as rent and discharged service tax, the same amount could not be subjected to tax again from the payer under reverse charge; in any event, the payment was in the nature of damages/compensation without any obligation to refrain from, or tolerate, an act under s.66E(e), so the demand failed on merits and was set aside. Extended limitation under the proviso to s.73(1) was held inapplicable for absence of suppression/misstatement, and penalty under s.78 was consequently quashed. Penalty under s.77(2) was also set aside for want of findings on contravention. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783925 Demand of service tax on an amount paid under a settlement to a municipal body was examined as to whether it constituted consideration for a "declared service" under s.66E(e) or merely outstanding rent. Since the municipal body treated the sum as rent and discharged service tax, the same amount could not be subjected to tax again from the payer under reverse charge; in any event, the payment was in the nature of damages/compensation without any obligation to refrain from, or tolerate, an act under s.66E(e), so the demand failed on merits and was set aside. Extended limitation under the proviso to s.73(1) was held inapplicable for absence of suppression/misstatement, and penalty under s.78 was consequently quashed. Penalty under s.77(2) was also set aside for want of findings on contravention. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783925