Extended period of limitation barred where same facts were earlier known; no suppression found so extended time not invokable.

A later show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation was held barred because the same facts were already known to the department when an earlier notice was issued; extended limitation applies only where there is conscious suppression, fraud, or collusion. The subsequent notice relied on third party data from Form 26AS after a service tax audit, but records showed regular ST-3 filings and no evidence of suppression. Consequently the confirmation of demand under the extended limitation was set aside and the extended period could not be invoked against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsequent show cause notice dated 12.04.2022 invoking the extended period of limitation is barred because a prior show cause notice dated 27.12.2020 was issued on the same set of facts.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the sequence and basis of the two show cause notices and the source of the audit information. The subsequent notice was issued after a service tax audit and relied on third party data compiled from Form 26AS provided by the Income Tax Department. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in respect of a later notice where the same facts were already known to the department when the earlier notice was issued, and that extended limitation is available only where there is conscious suppression, fraud, or collusion by the assessee. The records showed that the appellant had been regularly filing ST 3 returns and there was no evidence of suppression, fraud, or collusion to attract the extended period.

Conclusion: The subsequent show cause notice dated 12.04.2022 invoking the extended period of limitation is barred; the impugned order confirming demand under extended limitation is set aside in favour of the appellant (assessee).

---