Limitation and reimbursement treatment defeated service tax demand where no suppression was alleged and residual receipts were non-taxable charges.

A show cause notice under service tax law was held time barred because it did not invoke the extended limitation period and contained no allegation of suppression or wilful omission, so the extended period could not be applied. On merits, the receipts reflected in income tax returns were not fully treated as taxable security service value because the taxable value already disclosed in ST-3 returns substantially explained the receipts, and the residual amount was accepted as diesel and travel-related charges. The demand was therefore unsustainable both on limitation and on merits, and the dropping of the demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation for want of invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and absence of allegations of suppression; (ii) Whether the balance amount reflected in the income tax returns represented taxable security service value or deductible diesel and travel-related charges.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation for want of invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and absence of allegations of suppression.

Analysis: The ST-3 returns for the relevant half-years had been filed, and the notice was issued without specifically invoking the proviso to Section 73(1). The notice also did not contain an allegation of suppression or similar wilful omission. In these circumstances, the extended limitation period was not attracted.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was time barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the balance amount reflected in the income tax returns represented taxable security service value or deductible diesel and travel-related charges.

Analysis: The reported taxable value in the ST-3 returns, when aggregated, substantially explained the receipts shown in the income tax returns, leaving only a residual amount. That residual amount was accepted as attributable to diesel charges and travel and touring charges, which were not treated as part of the taxable security service value on the facts found.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable on merits.

Final Conclusion: The revenue failed on both limitation and merits, and the order dropping the demand was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the show cause notice does not invoke the extended period and contains no allegation of suppression, and the remaining receipts are found to relate to non-taxable reimbursements, the demand cannot be sustained.

---