Extended limitation for service tax demands cannot rest on Form 26AS alone without corroborative evidence of suppression.

A service tax demand based only on Form 26AS and income tax data could not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation without corroborative evidence of taxable service or deliberate suppression. The record showed that the assessee had already furnished documents to the Department and that the Revenue was seeking and receiving information about its activities before the show cause notice. On those facts, mere reliance on 26AS was insufficient to establish suppression, so the extended period was not invokable and the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice and the demand of service tax were barred by limitation on the ground that the extended period could not be invoked merely on the basis of Form 26AS and income tax data without corroborative evidence of suppression.

Analysis: The Appellant had furnished documents to the Department prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, and the record showed that the Revenue was already seeking and receiving information regarding the Appellant's activities. The demand was founded substantially on income tax data and Form 26AS, without independent corroboration from service tax records to establish taxable services or deliberate suppression. In such circumstances, mere reliance on 26AS was held to be insufficient for invoking the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable, and the demand was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS or income tax data, without corroborative evidence of taxable service and suppression, cannot sustain invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---