https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786524 Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST was denied because the record did not establish that the services were actually rendered to rural branches within the notification's scope, so the demand on merits was upheld. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked merely on the basis of Form 26AS and income-tax data, because those records did not independently prove taxable service, the recipient, or consideration, nor suppression with intent to evade tax. The Tribunal therefore set aside the extended-period demand and limited quantification to the normal period after verification, including the negative figure noted for the relevant period, granting partial relief. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Feb 2026 14:30:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786524 Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST was denied because the record did not establish that the services were actually rendered to rural branches within the notification's scope, so the demand on merits was upheld. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked merely on the basis of Form 26AS and income-tax data, because those records did not independently prove taxable service, the recipient, or consideration, nor suppression with intent to evade tax. The Tribunal therefore set aside the extended-period demand and limited quantification to the normal period after verification, including the negative figure noted for the relevant period, granting partial relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786524