Extended limitation requires proof of wilful suppression or evasion intent; third-party tax data alone cannot sustain service-tax demands.

Extended limitation for a service-tax demand cannot rest solely on third-party Income-tax data without evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax. A bona fide belief that services were exempt under the relevant notification, together with non-registration, non-payment, or discrepancies in tax disclosures, does not by itself establish the statutory conditions for invoking the extended period. The Department bears the burden of proving those conditions. Consequently, the demand was time-barred and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked to sustain service-tax demand solely on Income-tax Department third-party data, absent evidence of wilful suppression or intent to evade tax.

Analysis: The demand for October 2014 to March 2015 was raised through a show-cause notice dated 28.09.2020 by invoking the extended limitation period. The material relied upon consisted solely of third-party Income-tax data. The assessee had a bona fide belief that its services were exempt under entries 12 and 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Mere non-registration, non-payment, or a discrepancy between Income-tax data and service-tax disclosures did not establish fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or a deliberate intent to evade tax. The Department bore the burden to establish the statutory conditions for the extended period, which was not discharged.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; the surviving service-tax demand was time-barred and was set aside.

---