Extended limitation for GTA service tax demands requires pleaded suppression or deliberate evasion; absent that, the demand is time-barred.

The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be invoked for GTA service tax only where the show cause notice and record disclosed suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, collusion, or deliberate intent to evade tax. As the notice here did not contain such foundational allegations or supporting material, the extraordinary limitation period was unavailable. The demand was therefore time-barred and set aside, while the underlying liability on merits was left untouched.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand of service tax on Goods Transport Agency services.

Analysis: The demand arose from the assessee's availing of the exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-ST for GTA freight within the stated threshold. The substantive liability on merits was against the assessee, but the Tribunal focused on the validity of invoking the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. It noted that the show cause notice did not disclose facts establishing suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, collusion, or any deliberate intent to evade tax. In the absence of such foundational allegations and supporting material, the extraordinary limitation period could not be applied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue, and the demand was set aside as time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on limitation, leaving the issue of liability on merits unaltered.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation can be invoked only when the notice and record disclose the requisite elements of suppression or deliberate evasion; absent such allegations and material, the demand is barred by limitation.

---