https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84840 The SC held that mere non-disclosure of receipts in service tax returns doesn't mean intent to evade tax payment. To invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act 1994, deliberate and willful attempt to evade duty must be evident from assessee's conduct or records. Mere interpretation dispute doesn't justify extended period. Bona fide belief in non-liability, even if wrong, doesn't render it malafide. In self-assessment, assessee determines liability based on judgment; facts coming to light later doesn't prove evasion intent. The Department couldn't invoke extended period against the assessee for April 2008-March 2013 as no evasion intent was assigned. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:00:44 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:00:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84840 The SC held that mere non-disclosure of receipts in service tax returns doesn't mean intent to evade tax payment. To invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act 1994, deliberate and willful attempt to evade duty must be evident from assessee's conduct or records. Mere interpretation dispute doesn't justify extended period. Bona fide belief in non-liability, even if wrong, doesn't render it malafide. In self-assessment, assessee determines liability based on judgment; facts coming to light later doesn't prove evasion intent. The Department couldn't invoke extended period against the assessee for April 2008-March 2013 as no evasion intent was assigned. Appeal allowed. Highlights Service Tax Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:00:44 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84840