https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371493 Mere non-payment of service tax under the partial reverse charge mechanism, without cogent evidence of wilful suppression, deliberate misdeclaration or actual revenue loss, was treated as insufficient to justify the extended limitation period or penalty. The dispute concerned a new reverse charge arrangement under Notification No. 30/2012, and the taxpayer discharged tax and interest after the lapse was noticed in audit. On that material, failure to comply with the mechanism alone did not establish suppression of facts in returns, so the extended period was not invocable and penalty could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371493 Mere non-payment of service tax under the partial reverse charge mechanism, without cogent evidence of wilful suppression, deliberate misdeclaration or actual revenue loss, was treated as insufficient to justify the extended limitation period or penalty. The dispute concerned a new reverse charge arrangement under Notification No. 30/2012, and the taxpayer discharged tax and interest after the lapse was noticed in audit. On that material, failure to comply with the mechanism alone did not establish suppression of facts in returns, so the extended period was not invocable and penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371493