https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769479 CESTAT Hyderabad held that extended limitation period under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 was properly invoked against appellant. The tribunal distinguished between suppression requiring wilful intent under Section 11A and mere suppression under Section 73, noting that wilful suppression is not required for service tax proceedings. Despite appellant's disclosure of actual income in IT returns, their failure to accurately report in ST3 returns constituted suppression of facts sufficient to invoke extended limitation. The tribunal relied on SC precedents in Uniworth Textile and Continental Foundation cases while noting that mensrea is not essential for penalty imposition. Appeal dismissed. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Apr 2025 08:30:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769479 CESTAT Hyderabad held that extended limitation period under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 was properly invoked against appellant. The tribunal distinguished between suppression requiring wilful intent under Section 11A and mere suppression under Section 73, noting that wilful suppression is not required for service tax proceedings. Despite appellant's disclosure of actual income in IT returns, their failure to accurately report in ST3 returns constituted suppression of facts sufficient to invoke extended limitation. The tribunal relied on SC precedents in Uniworth Textile and Continental Foundation cases while noting that mensrea is not essential for penalty imposition. Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769479