https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218940 Where a service provider engaged in both taxable and exempt services failed to maintain separate accounts and utilised credit beyond the prescribed limit, the Court treated the unexplained excess credit as wilful suppression rather than an inadvertent lapse. That concealment in returns attracted the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, so the notice issued within five years was held to be within the extended limitation period. On the same factual basis, the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were sustained because the conduct was found to involve intent to evade tax. en-us Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218940 Where a service provider engaged in both taxable and exempt services failed to maintain separate accounts and utilised credit beyond the prescribed limit, the Court treated the unexplained excess credit as wilful suppression rather than an inadvertent lapse. That concealment in returns attracted the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, so the notice issued within five years was held to be within the extended limitation period. On the same factual basis, the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 were sustained because the conduct was found to involve intent to evade tax. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218940