Extended limitation barred where foreign service facts were disclosed and no suppression was found; interest and penalties fell with the notice.

The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable because there was no suppression or misconduct by the assessee. The assessee had disclosed the foreign franchise service arrangement, had earlier sought clarification from the Department, and the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge. As the notice was unsustainable on limitation, the consequential demand of interest and the penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 were also set aside. The matter turned on disclosure of facts and the absence of any basis for invoking the extended limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable and whether interest and penalty were sustainable where the assessee had disclosed the foreign service arrangement and paid the tax before adjudication.

Analysis: The Tribunal found no misconduct or suppression of facts on the part of the assessee. The assessee had sought clarification from the Department much earlier, and the facts regarding receipt of franchise services from abroad were within the Department's knowledge. In these circumstances, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Once the notice itself was unsustainable on that basis, the consequential demand of interest and the penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994 could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was held unsustainable, and the demand of interest and the penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---