<?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>Service tax demand based only on Form 26AS failed where taxability, exemption and extended limitation were not properly established.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99107</link>
    <description>Service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS was unsustainable because taxability had to be determined from the statute, relevant records and exemption materials, not inferred from third-party information. The Court held that the authorities failed to examine the plea that the receipts related to government works contracts covered by exemption and therefore did not establish any taxable liability under the Finance Act, 1994. It also held that the extended limitation period could be invoked only on the statutory grounds of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, none of which were properly found. The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative appeal remedy because the impugned proceedings suffered from jurisdictional error and patent legal infirmity, and the demand, interest and penalty were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 09:50:24 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 09:50:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Service tax demand based only on Form 26AS failed where taxability, exemption and extended limitation were not properly established.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99107</link>
      <description>Service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS was unsustainable because taxability had to be determined from the statute, relevant records and exemption materials, not inferred from third-party information. The Court held that the authorities failed to examine the plea that the receipts related to government works contracts covered by exemption and therefore did not establish any taxable liability under the Finance Act, 1994. It also held that the extended limitation period could be invoked only on the statutory grounds of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, none of which were properly found. The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative appeal remedy because the impugned proceedings suffered from jurisdictional error and patent legal infirmity, and the demand, interest and penalty were quashed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 09:50:24 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>