https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793520 Service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS was unsustainable where the department did not independently examine the nature of services rendered or the applicability of the exemption claimed under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Gauhati HC also held that invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires jurisdictional facts such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax, and the record did not establish those conditions. The demand, interest and penalties were therefore set aside and the impugned orders were quashed. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2026 08:45:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793520 Service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS was unsustainable where the department did not independently examine the nature of services rendered or the applicability of the exemption claimed under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Gauhati HC also held that invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires jurisdictional facts such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax, and the record did not establish those conditions. The demand, interest and penalties were therefore set aside and the impugned orders were quashed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793520