https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380561 The extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the service tax demand because the Department had already been informed of the ATM-related transactions through the audit questionnaire, the assessee's reply and supporting invoices well before the show cause notice. The dispute arose, at most, from non-production of original invoices, not from suppression of facts or fraud. Since the Department had knowledge of the relevant facts in 2013, the later notice in 2016 could not rely on the larger limitation period. The demand was therefore time-barred. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2019 11:48:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380561 The extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the service tax demand because the Department had already been informed of the ATM-related transactions through the audit questionnaire, the assessee's reply and supporting invoices well before the show cause notice. The dispute arose, at most, from non-production of original invoices, not from suppression of facts or fraud. Since the Department had knowledge of the relevant facts in 2013, the later notice in 2016 could not rely on the larger limitation period. The demand was therefore time-barred. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380561