https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95187 Non-filing of mandatory ST-3 returns despite registration, coupled with non-response to departmental enquiries, was held to constitute willful suppression with intent to evade service tax on taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994, justifying demand on differential receipts. Consequently, the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) was upheld, and the challenge on limitation failed. Since the demand was sustained, interest under Section 75 was also sustained. Penalty under Section 78 was upheld as a corollary to established suppression with intent to evade, and late fee under Rule 7C and penalty under Section 77(1)(c) were upheld for statutory non-compliance and failure to furnish information. Appeal dismissed. - CESTAT en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:26 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95187 Non-filing of mandatory ST-3 returns despite registration, coupled with non-response to departmental enquiries, was held to constitute willful suppression with intent to evade service tax on taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994, justifying demand on differential receipts. Consequently, the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) was upheld, and the challenge on limitation failed. Since the demand was sustained, interest under Section 75 was also sustained. Penalty under Section 78 was upheld as a corollary to established suppression with intent to evade, and late fee under Rule 7C and penalty under Section 77(1)(c) were upheld for statutory non-compliance and failure to furnish information. Appeal dismissed. - CESTAT Highlights Service Tax Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:26 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95187