https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793561 A service tax demand based only on Form 26AS was held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority did not independently examine the nature of the services rendered or record the statutory preconditions for invoking the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the absence of findings of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax, the demand lacked jurisdiction. Once the principal demand failed, the connected interest, penalties, and bank account attachment notices also had no independent basis and were quashed. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2026 08:45:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793561 A service tax demand based only on Form 26AS was held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority did not independently examine the nature of the services rendered or record the statutory preconditions for invoking the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the absence of findings of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax, the demand lacked jurisdiction. Once the principal demand failed, the connected interest, penalties, and bank account attachment notices also had no independent basis and were quashed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793561