https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794041 Works contract services for construction of roads and drainage supplied to government departments and local bodies were treated as exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and a service tax demand could not be sustained merely because receipts appeared in Form 26AS. The record required examination of the actual nature of the contracts, and taxability was not established on that basis alone. Once the demand failed, the related interest and penalties also failed. In the absence of suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax, the penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, including the suppression penalty, were not justified. en-us Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794041 Works contract services for construction of roads and drainage supplied to government departments and local bodies were treated as exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and a service tax demand could not be sustained merely because receipts appeared in Form 26AS. The record required examination of the actual nature of the contracts, and taxability was not established on that basis alone. Once the demand failed, the related interest and penalties also failed. In the absence of suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax, the penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, including the suppression penalty, were not justified. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794041