Wilful suppression requires deliberate intent to evade tax; mere non-disclosure cannot justify the extended limitation period.

Wilful suppression for service tax requires deliberate nondisclosure with intent to evade tax; a mere omission to declare a levy is insufficient to justify the extended limitation period. The Tribunal also noted that departmental clarification treats conclusion of proceedings under sections 73(1A) and 73(3) as concluding the proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994. On these principles, invocation of suppression and the extended period was not sustained, and the assessee obtained relief against the confirmed demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking suppression of facts and the extended period of limitation, and whether the proceedings stood concluded under the service tax provisions.

Analysis: The appeal challenged confirmation of service tax demand on the ground that the appellant had no knowledge of the levy and that there was no deliberate suppression. The Tribunal noted that suppression requires a deliberate nondisclosure with intent to evade payment, and that mere failure to declare does not amount to wilful suppression. It also relied on the departmental clarification that conclusion of proceedings under section 73(1A) and section 73(3) signifies conclusion of the entire proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The invocation of suppression and the extended period was not sustained, and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained complete relief against the confirmed service tax demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Wilful suppression requires deliberate nondisclosure to evade tax, and mere omission or failure to declare, without such intent, does not justify the extended period of limitation.

---