https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790008 Limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and invocation of the extended period could not be sustained on the existing record because the allegation of suppression required factual verification, including the appellant's tax payments on taxable services. The exemption claim also depended on whether the underlying works were for government, educational, residential, or other non-commercial purposes, and on the tax treatment of sub-contractor and main-contractor arrangements. As the work orders were not examined in sufficient detail, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh verification of the limitation objection, exempted character of the services, and related liability. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:21:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790008 Limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and invocation of the extended period could not be sustained on the existing record because the allegation of suppression required factual verification, including the appellant's tax payments on taxable services. The exemption claim also depended on whether the underlying works were for government, educational, residential, or other non-commercial purposes, and on the tax treatment of sub-contractor and main-contractor arrangements. As the work orders were not examined in sufficient detail, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh verification of the limitation objection, exempted character of the services, and related liability. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790008