Extended Period of Limitation Cannot Be Invoked as Assessee Had Bona Fide Belief That Service Tax Was Not Payable on Services

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Extended Limitation Period
Case Details: Maheshwari Builders V. Commissioner of CE & CGST, Lucknow (2025) 29 CENTAX 72 (TRI.-ALL)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S/Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (J) & Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)
  • Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Adv., for the Appellant.
  • Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee received amounts for services that were either covered by the negative list or eligible for exemption. Based on this, the assessee believed that service tax was not payable. However, the department alleged suppression of facts as the differential turnover was not declared in ST-3 returns. The issue before the Allahabad Tribunal was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked by the department as the assessee had a bona fide belief that service tax was not payable on services covered by the negative list or eligible for exemption.

CESTAT Held

The Tribunal noted that the services were either covered by the negative list or exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as amended. Despite the adjudicating authority acknowledging this, the demands were confirmed without proper evaluation. The Tribunal held that relying solely on Form 26AS without assessing exemptions or verifying service nature was insufficient. It was held that the assessee’s belief was genuine and supported by precedent. Therefore, the extended limitation period was not applicable, and the demand was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

List of Cases Cited

List of Notifications Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
FA 2010 Service Tax Levy on Construction Upheld | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 19, 2026

Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 17, 2026