Extended limitation under service tax law fails without suppression of facts or intent to evade tax.

Extended limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; a mere interpretational dispute is insufficient. The text notes that the assessee-bank was a PSU/scheduled bank under continuous regulatory supervision, its transactions were duly recorded in statutory books, and there was no material showing deliberate omission or mischief. On that basis, the longer limitation period was treated as unavailable, and demands raised on that basis were unsustainable. The appeals of the assessee were allowed on limitation, and the departmental appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be invoked for the service tax demands in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade tax.

Analysis: The Appellant-Bank was a PSU/Scheduled Bank under continuous regulatory supervision, and its transactions were reflected in the statutory books. The dispute involved questions of interpretation, and there was no material to show any mischief, deliberate omission, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. In such circumstances, the precondition for invoking the longer limitation period was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the demands raised by applying the larger period were unsustainable. The appeals of the assessee were therefore allowed on limitation, and the departmental appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation under Section 73(1) cannot be sustained unless suppression of facts with intent to evade tax is established; mere interpretational dispute and duly recorded transactions do not justify its invocation.

---