Extended service-tax limitation requires proof of deliberate tax evasion, not merely third-party data discrepancies or return non-filing.

Extended service-tax limitation cannot be invoked solely on third-party income-tax data showing a mismatch between Form 26AS receipts and service-tax return filings. The statutory conditions require corroborative evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment or non-filing does not establish a wilful default, and the Department must prove a positive act demonstrating evasion intent. On the stated analysis, reliance only on Income Tax Department information made the extended limitation period unsustainable and rendered the demand time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked to raise service-tax demand solely on third-party income-tax data without proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax.

Analysis: The demand was founded solely on information received from the Income Tax Department showing a discrepancy between receipts reflected in Form 26AS and the absence of service-tax returns. Such third-party data, without corroborative material establishing the statutory ingredients for the extended limitation period, does not establish deliberate suppression or mala fide intent. Mere non-payment or non-filing does not by itself amount to wilful default; the Department bears the burden to prove a positive act demonstrating intent to evade tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable, and the demand was time-barred. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

---