<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (10) TMI 1957 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=802014</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires demonstrable deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement intended to evade tax. Mere non-payment, short-payment, discrepancies between returns and financial records, or a disputed exemption claim do not meet that threshold. Registered taxpayers who filed ST-3 returns, supplied agreements and financial records during investigation, and acted on a bona fide belief that services were exempt could not be treated as having deliberately concealed liability. A substantial reduction in the original demand further weakened any allegation of suppression. Recovery for part of the disputed period also exceeded the maximum five-year limitation period. The service-tax demand was therefore time-barred, with consequential interest and penalties unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2026 08:12:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=932615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 1957 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=802014</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires demonstrable deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement intended to evade tax. Mere non-payment, short-payment, discrepancies between returns and financial records, or a disputed exemption claim do not meet that threshold. Registered taxpayers who filed ST-3 returns, supplied agreements and financial records during investigation, and acted on a bona fide belief that services were exempt could not be treated as having deliberately concealed liability. A substantial reduction in the original demand further weakened any allegation of suppression. Recovery for part of the disputed period also exceeded the maximum five-year limitation period. The service-tax demand was therefore time-barred, with consequential interest and penalties unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=802014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>