<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (4) TMI 1436 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790367</link>
    <description>Service tax cannot be fastened merely from Form 26AS entries; the taxable nature of the underlying works contracts had to be examined, including the claimed exemption for services rendered to Government entities. On the facts stated, reliance only on third-party income-tax data was insufficient, so the levy on the receipts was unsustainable. The extended limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be invoked only on a clear finding of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax; absent such jurisdictional findings, the demand was time-barred. The article also notes that the writ court may intervene despite an alternative appeal where jurisdiction itself is in issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:52:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1436 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790367</link>
      <description>Service tax cannot be fastened merely from Form 26AS entries; the taxable nature of the underlying works contracts had to be examined, including the claimed exemption for services rendered to Government entities. On the facts stated, reliance only on third-party income-tax data was insufficient, so the levy on the receipts was unsustainable. The extended limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be invoked only on a clear finding of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax; absent such jurisdictional findings, the demand was time-barred. The article also notes that the writ court may intervene despite an alternative appeal where jurisdiction itself is in issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>