CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demands, Finds No Fraud or Double Taxation Under Section 65(105)(zzzz)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside all confirmed demands of service tax. It held that no fraud or suppression warranted invocation of the extended limitation period. The reverse charge mechanism was inapplicable as the service provider had already charged and paid service tax, rendering further demand double taxation. Reimbursements of electricity, water, and diesel charges reflected actual consumption supported by evidentiary documents, negating service tax liability. The long-term lease agreements for 999 years constituted outright transfer of property, not a lease under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, thus outside taxable services. Consequently, demands for interest and penalties were quashed, including those against the Manager (Accounts), as no service tax liability or offense was established.....