https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471804 Reverse-charge payment by corporate recipients of manpower-supply services precludes a second service-tax demand on the proprietary supplier, as taxing the same service again would result in double taxation. Receipts disclosed in Form 26AS and income-tax returns do not establish suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax. Consequently, the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is unavailable, and the service-tax demand and connected penalty cannot survive. en-us Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2026 18:37:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471804 Reverse-charge payment by corporate recipients of manpower-supply services precludes a second service-tax demand on the proprietary supplier, as taxing the same service again would result in double taxation. Receipts disclosed in Form 26AS and income-tax returns do not establish suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax. Consequently, the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is unavailable, and the service-tax demand and connected penalty cannot survive. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471804