https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751153 Where the Department was already aware of the relevant facts from earlier proceedings, the same or similar facts could not be treated as suppression to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation for a construction service demand. The prior notice and earlier appellate decision were treated as material showing that the facts were already within the Department's knowledge, so the extended limitation period was held unavailable. On that basis, penalty under Section 78, being dependent on the same demand, could not survive once limitation failed. The document states that the demand for the relevant period was unsustainable on limitation and suppression grounds and that the Revenue's challenge failed in full. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Apr 2024 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751153 Where the Department was already aware of the relevant facts from earlier proceedings, the same or similar facts could not be treated as suppression to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation for a construction service demand. The prior notice and earlier appellate decision were treated as material showing that the facts were already within the Department's knowledge, so the extended limitation period was held unavailable. On that basis, penalty under Section 78, being dependent on the same demand, could not survive once limitation failed. The document states that the demand for the relevant period was unsustainable on limitation and suppression grounds and that the Revenue's challenge failed in full. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751153