Extended limitation under section 11A requires clear allegations of suppression, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement in the notice.

Extended limitation under section 11A was unavailable because the show-cause notice did not specifically allege suppression of facts, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement, and it did not invoke the proviso to justify the longer period. On that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred. The Tribunal also declined to refer a question on a limitation issue already settled by the Supreme Court, holding that no referable question of law survived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation for issuing the show-cause notice could be invoked in the absence of a specific of suppression of facts or other ingredients justifying the extended period under section 11A.

Analysis: The demand was founded on a show-cause notice issued beyond the normal period. The record showed no specific allegation in the notice of suppression of facts, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement, nor was the proviso to section 11A specifically invoked in the notice to justify the longer limitation period. In such circumstances, the Tribunal treated the demand as time-barred and declined to refer a question already settled by the Supreme Court on the necessity of clear averments to attract the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand was barred by time.

Final Conclusion: The reference application failed because no referable question of law survived on the settled limitation issue.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation under section 11A cannot be invoked unless the show-cause notice specifically alleges the facts that bring the case within the proviso, such as suppression, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement.

---