Extended limitation for service tax demand rejected where records disclosed the value and no suppression or intent to evade was shown.

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not available where the disputed value was already reflected in the assessee's books, balance sheet, profit and loss account and return-related records. On those facts, the record did not establish deliberate concealment, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Because the dispute was also interpretation-based and the assessee's bona fide belief that the activity was not taxable was not rebutted, the service tax demand could not be sustained on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was validly invoked for the service tax demand.

Analysis: The disputed taxable value was already reflected in the assessee's books of account, balance sheet, profit and loss account, and return-related records. The demand itself was based on those statutory records, and the record did not show deliberate concealment, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The levy also involved an interpretation-based dispute, and the assessee's bona fide belief that the activity was not taxable could not be rejected on the facts found.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the demand could not be sustained on limitation.

---