Suppression of declared taxable value in ST-3 returns found deliberate, leading to extended limitation, interest and penalty upheld

Whether taxable value was suppressed with intent to evade, attracting extended limitation and penalty: appellate fact-findings showed ST-3 returns omitted declared values and payments inconsistent with returns, establishing deliberate suppression and knowledge of liability and computation; such concurrent findings are not to be disturbed absent perversity - outcome: extended period under proviso to s.73(1) Finance Act 1994 applied and service-tax demand upheld. Whether interest and penalty are payable: interest under s.75 on confirmed demand follows as consequence; penalty under s.78 upheld given suppression with intent (verdict affirmed).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of service tax of Rs.20,71,984/- (including interest and penalty) based on difference between values in audited financial records/ITR and ST-3 returns and made invoking the extended period of limitation (proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994) is sustainable; and whether interest and penalty thereon are recoverable.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the statutory framework under the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules, 1994, including provisions requiring assessment and filing of ST-3 returns and provisions enabling invocation of the extended five-year period where suppression with intent to evade is found. The authorities relied on audited balance sheet and ITR/third-party data showing receipts not declared in ST-3 returns, the appellant's failure to produce corroborative invoices or to rely on any permitted exception under Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 for adducing new evidence, and concurrent factual findings below. The Tribunal examined applicable precedents on invocation of extended limitation and found no perversity in concurrent findings; it held the appellant's conduct and record supported a finding of deliberate suppression of taxable value, making the extended period invokable. Having upheld the demand, the Tribunal also applied the statutory provisions for levy of interest and penalty and upheld related late fee/penalty provisions for non-filing and non-cooperation.

Conclusion: The demand of service tax of Rs.20,71,984/- is upheld; interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 78 (and related late fees/penalties) are also upheld in favour of the revenue.

---