Brochure evidence and limitation in credit disputes: non-disclosure of unrequired particulars cannot support suppression or extended period demand.

Brochure evidence produced before the appellate authority was not inadmissible additional evidence because it did not introduce a new case and was relevant to the credit dispute over service used for brochure preparation. The demand was also held time-barred, as credit was reflected in the returns and the law did not require disclosure of each input service; non-mention of the particular service therefore could not amount to suppression. The extended period of limitation was unsustainable, and the demand was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the brochure produced before the appellate authority constituted inadmissible additional evidence under the appellate rules; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground of suppression.

Issue (i): Whether the brochure produced before the appellate authority constituted inadmissible additional evidence under the appellate rules.

Analysis: The credit dispute was founded on the nature of the service used for preparing brochures for sale promotion. Production of the brochure before the appellate authority did not introduce a new case or amount to additional evidence of the kind prohibited by the appellate rule relied upon by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The brochure could not be treated as inadmissible additional evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground of suppression.

Analysis: The credit had been taken and reflected in the returns. Where the returns did not require disclosure of the nature of each input service, non-mention of the particular service could not amount to suppression. The basis adopted below for invoking the extended period was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the allegation of suppression was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The demand was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression cannot be inferred from non-disclosure of particulars that the law does not require to be declared in the returns, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked on that basis.

---