Extended limitation under service tax cannot rest on later return defaults where levy was under litigation and suppression is unproved.

Service tax demand on Goods Transport Agency services was found time-barred because the levy was under litigation and the statutory scheme had been later clarified by retrospective amendments. On these facts, failure to file a return under the later framework did not by itself establish fraud, suppression, or intent to evade tax, especially where the department was already aware of the issue. The extended period of limitation was therefore not available, and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The demand related to Goods Transport Agency services during a period when the levy was under litigation and the statutory framework had been modified by retrospective amendments. The relevant return requirements introduced later could not, on these facts, justify attributing fraud, suppression or intent to evade tax to the assessee, particularly when the department was already aware of the issue. The decision followed the jurisdictional High Court view that, before the substitution of Section 73 with effect from 10.9.2004, the amended provisions of Sections 68 and 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be applied to fasten default in the manner suggested by the revenue.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not invocable; the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a levy is under litigation and the statutory scheme is clarified only by retrospective amendment, absence of a return in the earlier regime does not by itself establish suppression or intent to evade so as to justify the extended period of limitation.

---