Topic
CESTAT held that trading income and rent from residential property are not services under Section 65B(44) Finance Act 1994, and set aside a Rs 19,72,702 demand for FY 2013/14 to 2015/16, giving relief to traders and residential landlords wrongly taxed.
CESTAT Allahabad rules that the department cannot invoke extended limitation under service tax law if it was already aware of the facts at the time of the first show cause notice. The tribunal sets aside a Rs.13.36 lakh demand, reinforcing that suppression of facts cannot be alleged where no new information emerges.
CESTAT Chennai sets aside a service tax demand as time-barred, ruling that the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 mandates proof of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax, not mere non-payment or procedural lapses. The decision underscores the high evidentiary threshold for tax authorities to invoke extended limitation periods against assessees.