https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790671 A sub-contractor may remain liable for service tax even where the main contractor has allegedly discharged tax on the same activity, and bare assertion without documentary proof is insufficient to displace the demand. On limitation, the extended period was treated as dependent on factual verification of whether tax had already been paid by the main contractor, especially in a dispute involving interpretation of subcontract taxability. The matter was remanded for limited verification; if payment by the main contractor is proved, the demand is confined to the normal period with interest and without penalty, but if not proved, the full demand, interest and penalty remain sustainable. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790671 A sub-contractor may remain liable for service tax even where the main contractor has allegedly discharged tax on the same activity, and bare assertion without documentary proof is insufficient to displace the demand. On limitation, the extended period was treated as dependent on factual verification of whether tax had already been paid by the main contractor, especially in a dispute involving interpretation of subcontract taxability. The matter was remanded for limited verification; if payment by the main contractor is proved, the demand is confined to the normal period with interest and without penalty, but if not proved, the full demand, interest and penalty remain sustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790671