https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794880 Under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, a service tax demand issued beyond the normal limitation period can proceed only if the extended period is validly invoked. The analysis states that non-registration, non-filing of returns, or non-declaration of an activity, without deliberate misstatement or suppression intended to evade tax, does not independently establish the required jurisdictional basis. This is particularly relevant where the dispute is interpretational and arises from the assessee's records. On that reasoning, the extended limitation period was unavailable, making the demand time-barred and the proceedings unsustainable, including the proposed tax, interest, and penalty. en-us Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:26:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794880 Under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, a service tax demand issued beyond the normal limitation period can proceed only if the extended period is validly invoked. The analysis states that non-registration, non-filing of returns, or non-declaration of an activity, without deliberate misstatement or suppression intended to evade tax, does not independently establish the required jurisdictional basis. This is particularly relevant where the dispute is interpretational and arises from the assessee's records. On that reasoning, the extended limitation period was unavailable, making the demand time-barred and the proceedings unsustainable, including the proposed tax, interest, and penalty. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794880