https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407990 Extended limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; mere non-disclosure in returns is insufficient. On the facts, there was no mala fide conduct, the issue was industry-wide, and the service tax paid was also available as CENVAT credit, so the precondition for invoking the extended period was not met. Penalty under section 78 likewise failed because it depends on deliberate suppression and intent to evade. The extended period and the section 78 penalty were set aside, while interest for the later period was sustained. en-us Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407990 Extended limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; mere non-disclosure in returns is insufficient. On the facts, there was no mala fide conduct, the issue was industry-wide, and the service tax paid was also available as CENVAT credit, so the precondition for invoking the extended period was not met. Penalty under section 78 likewise failed because it depends on deliberate suppression and intent to evade. The extended period and the section 78 penalty were set aside, while interest for the later period was sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407990