https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771901 CESTAT Chennai held that service tax demand against appellant for period October 2014 to June 2017 was wholly barred by limitation. The department failed to invoke extended limitation period as appellant regularly filed returns declaring income under export of services, and jurisdictional officers failed to scrutinize returns despite mandatory responsibilities. Since appellant's declarations were known to department and no evidence of suppression existed, extended period under Section 73 Finance Act was not applicable. Normal limitation period had expired before show cause notice issued in June 2020. Appeal allowed without examining merits due to limitation bar. en-us Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 08:34:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771901 CESTAT Chennai held that service tax demand against appellant for period October 2014 to June 2017 was wholly barred by limitation. The department failed to invoke extended limitation period as appellant regularly filed returns declaring income under export of services, and jurisdictional officers failed to scrutinize returns despite mandatory responsibilities. Since appellant's declarations were known to department and no evidence of suppression existed, extended period under Section 73 Finance Act was not applicable. Normal limitation period had expired before show cause notice issued in June 2020. Appeal allowed without examining merits due to limitation bar. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771901