Suppression of facts cannot extend limitation when relevant exemption documents were already disclosed to the department.

Where the assessee had disclosed the relevant declaration and supporting certificate to the department, exemption claimed for goods supplied for use as naval stores could not be treated as suppressed. On those disclosed facts, the allegation of suppression failed and the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation was not made out. The extended period was therefore not invocable, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the allegation of suppression of facts in relation to the exemption claimed under Notification No. 64/95 dated 16/03/95.

Analysis: The declaration filed by the assessee was available with the department and specifically stated that the goods were being supplied to Mazgaon Dock Ltd. against the purchase order, supported by a certificate from the Indian Navy that the goods were to be used as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy. The claim for exemption was thus made on the basis of disclosed documents already within the department's knowledge. In these circumstances, the allegation of suppression was not sustainable, and the foundation for invoking the extended period of limitation failed.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts and supporting documents are disclosed to the department, the extended period cannot be invoked merely on an allegation of suppression.

---