Extended limitation and reopening failed where records disclosed the facts and no suppression or misstatement was shown.

Extended limitation cannot be invoked where the assessee's records already disclosed the relevant facts, because suppression or wilful misstatement is not established on the available material. A departmental attempt to reopen proceedings after the original adjudication was also treated as invalid, as the later review and fresh notice proceeded without a lawful basis to disturb the completed assessment. On that reasoning, the longer limitation period was held unavailable and the reopening was not sustainable in law, with the demand and penalty set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period on the basis of suppression or misstatement, and whether the departmental reopening of proceedings after the original adjudication was valid.

Analysis: The demand had originally been raised by show cause notice and the proceedings were dropped by the Assistant Collector. The subsequent review and fresh notice proceeded on allegations of wilful suppression and evasion, but the material facts were already available from the assessee's records. In these circumstances, the later attempt to reopen the matter was held to be beyond jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. The basis for invoking the longer limitation period was also rejected, as there was no suppression of facts or misstatement justifying such invocation.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked and the reopening of the proceedings was invalid. The impugned demand and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---