There is no error in the finding recorded by the Commissioner in this regard, as indeed the appellant did try to Evade Payment of service tax by treating the amount as a Security Deposit when in fact it was clearly an advance, which fact was very specifically mentioned in the Agreement. The intention to evade payment of service tax by suppression of material facts is writ large.

The post Treating Advance Amount as Security Deposit – Invocation of extended period of limitation valid appeared first on TaxGuru.