Limitation for service tax demand fails where records were already available and no suppression or intent to evade is shown.

Service tax demand for 2011-12 was held time-barred because the show cause notice was issued only on 26.05.2015 and the relevant transactions were already reflected in the assessee's regular business records and available to audit. On those facts, mere non-disclosure to the Revenue did not establish suppression of facts or mala fide intent to evade tax, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

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

Analysis: The demand related to the period 2011-12, while the show cause notice was issued on 26.05.2015. The material facts and transactions were already reflected in the assessee's regular business records and were available to audit. In such circumstances, non-disclosure to the Revenue could not, by itself, establish suppression of facts or mala fide intention to evade tax so as to justify invocation of the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended period of limitation was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts are fully reflected in the assessee's records and are available to the Department through audit, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression or mala fide intent to evade tax.

---