https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785473 The note addresses whether commission receipts constituted taxable business auxiliary services or fell within transfer of immovable property exclusions, and whether extended limitation applied. The appellant failed to produce corroborative evidence that the receipts were commission for sale/export of raw cotton, leading to denial of exemption under the relevant notification; consequence: exemption benefit not allowed. Audit revealed mismatches between books and ST-3 returns and nondisclosure, establishing suppression with intent; consequence: extended limitation period was validly invoked and service tax demand for 2010-11 and 2011-12 was confirmed. en-us Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Jan 2026 13:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785473 The note addresses whether commission receipts constituted taxable business auxiliary services or fell within transfer of immovable property exclusions, and whether extended limitation applied. The appellant failed to produce corroborative evidence that the receipts were commission for sale/export of raw cotton, leading to denial of exemption under the relevant notification; consequence: exemption benefit not allowed. Audit revealed mismatches between books and ST-3 returns and nondisclosure, establishing suppression with intent; consequence: extended limitation period was validly invoked and service tax demand for 2010-11 and 2011-12 was confirmed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785473