<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Limitation Period For Tax Evasion Not Extended For Mere Non-Production Of Documents.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82987</link>
    <description>Failure to produce supporting documents before audit team does not constitute suppression of facts to invoke extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. No allegation of statutory contravention with intent to evade tax against assessee. Not producing documents necessary for substantiating claim does not fall under exception of &quot;suppression of facts&quot;. No express allegations made in show cause notice regarding suppression of facts. High Court concurred with CESTAT that extended period not correctly invoked as intent to evade tax neither established nor evident. No infirmity in CESTAT&#039;s decision rejecting Revenue&#039;s contention of invoking extended period under proviso to Section 73(1).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:42:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:42:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777304" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Limitation Period For Tax Evasion Not Extended For Mere Non-Production Of Documents.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82987</link>
      <description>Failure to produce supporting documents before audit team does not constitute suppression of facts to invoke extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. No allegation of statutory contravention with intent to evade tax against assessee. Not producing documents necessary for substantiating claim does not fall under exception of &quot;suppression of facts&quot;. No express allegations made in show cause notice regarding suppression of facts. High Court concurred with CESTAT that extended period not correctly invoked as intent to evade tax neither established nor evident. No infirmity in CESTAT&#039;s decision rejecting Revenue&#039;s contention of invoking extended period under proviso to Section 73(1).</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:42:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>