https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442899 Regular disclosure of the taxable service and abatement claim in ST-3 returns defeated invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) because suppression or misdeclaration was not established, so the extended-period demand was set aside. Penalty under Section 78 also failed because fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax was not shown on the facts disclosed to the department, so the penalty was struck down. The demand for the normal period was sustained, resulting in partial relief to the assessee. en-us Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:13:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442899 Regular disclosure of the taxable service and abatement claim in ST-3 returns defeated invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) because suppression or misdeclaration was not established, so the extended-period demand was set aside. Penalty under Section 78 also failed because fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax was not shown on the facts disclosed to the department, so the penalty was struck down. The demand for the normal period was sustained, resulting in partial relief to the assessee. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442899