Bona fide disclosure in ST-3 returns bars extended limitation and penalty where suppression is not established.

Bona fide disclosure of taxable value in ST-3 returns defeated any allegation of suppression, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the service tax demand. The demand was therefore confined to the normal period and remanded for re-quantification. On the penalty issue, the same absence of mala fide conduct meant the foundation for penal action did not survive, so the penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the extended period of limitation was available to the Revenue for the service tax demand; (ii) whether the penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the extended period of limitation was available to the Revenue for the service tax demand.

Analysis: The appellants were registered with the department and had been filing ST-3 returns showing payment of service tax on the service value reflected in the contracts with a public sector undertaking. In these circumstances, the demand was not supported by mala fide intention or suppression so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable.

Analysis: Since the appellants acted under a bona fide belief and the finding on limitation negatived mala fide conduct, the foundation for penal action did not survive.

Conclusion: The penalties were not sustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The demand was confined to the normal period and sent back for re-quantification, while the penalties were deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Bona fide disclosure of the taxable value in statutory returns negates suppression and prevents invocation of the extended period of limitation, and the absence of mala fide also warrants deletion of penalty.

---