https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426864 An extended-period demand based on an alleged mismatch between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS was unsustainable where the assessee had already filed the returns and enclosed them with the reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte without examining the reply or the available record, and the notice wrongly assumed that no returns had been filed. The turnover difference was also capable of explanation because ST-3 returns and Form 26AS reflect different accounting bases, namely accrual and receipt. In these circumstances, there was no basis to allege suppression or failure to disclose taxable turnover, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the demand failed. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:16:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426864 An extended-period demand based on an alleged mismatch between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS was unsustainable where the assessee had already filed the returns and enclosed them with the reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte without examining the reply or the available record, and the notice wrongly assumed that no returns had been filed. The turnover difference was also capable of explanation because ST-3 returns and Form 26AS reflect different accounting bases, namely accrual and receipt. In these circumstances, there was no basis to allege suppression or failure to disclose taxable turnover, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the demand failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426864