Extended limitation cannot rest on Form 26AS alone; service tax liability needs independent corroboration and proof of taxable service.

Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST was denied because the record did not establish that the services were actually rendered to rural branches within the notification's scope, so the demand on merits was upheld. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked merely on the basis of Form 26AS and income-tax data, because those records did not independently prove taxable service, the recipient, or consideration, nor suppression with intent to evade tax. The Tribunal therefore set aside the extended-period demand and limited quantification to the normal period after verification, including the negative figure noted for the relevant period, granting partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 for services stated to have been rendered in rural areas. (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period on the basis of Form 26AS and Income Tax data.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 for services stated to have been rendered in rural areas.

Analysis: The exemption claim required proof that the services were actually rendered to rural branches of banks and insurance companies within the scope of the notification. The record did not contain evidence establishing that the appellant satisfied the factual conditions for the claimed exemption. The demand was therefore examined on merits and not displaced merely by the assertion of exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption claim was rejected and the demand was held sustainable on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period on the basis of Form 26AS and Income Tax data.

Analysis: The demand originated from third-party tax data and was not supported by independent corroborative material showing taxable service, service recipient, and consideration in the manner required for service tax liability. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that Form 26AS and similar income-tax records, by themselves, do not establish service tax liability or suppression with intent to evade tax. On that basis, the extended limitation was not invokable, and the quantification for the normal period was to be worked out after due verification, including the benefit of the negative figure noted in the relevant period.

Conclusion: The extended period demand was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the extended-period demand was disallowed, while the demand on merits was otherwise upheld, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Service tax demand cannot be sustained for the extended period merely on the basis of Form 26AS or income-tax data without independent corroborative evidence establishing taxable service and the ingredients for invoking extended limitation.

---