Ignorance of law or illiteracy can undermine findings of willful suppression, affecting the validity of tax demand and penalties.
Administrative demands and penalties based on alleged willful suppression of taxable services require supporting record evidence and must correspond to allegations in the show cause notice; where the record does not substantiate suppression and the allegation was not made in the notice, the resultant service tax demand and penalties are not sustainable.

Extended limitation period: not available where assessee had bona fide belief or doubt about service tax liability.
Extended limitation cannot be invoked where the assessee had a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable, where bona fide doubt existed about chargeability, where the assessee voluntarily approached the department earlier, where the issue is one of legal interpretation creating genuine confusion, or where earlier favorable decisions were subsequently overruled without evidence of suppression.

Specific service allegation: tax liability cannot be confirmed unless the show-cause notice specifies the service head.
A show-cause notice must specifically identify the service head or sub-head relied upon; absent a precise allegation as to the applicable classification, tax liability cannot be confirmed, and alternative classifications suggested by the Commissioner without being pleaded in the notice render any demand unsustainable.

SCN requirement: absence of a show-cause notice prevents imposition of service tax and interest under revision.
Issuance of a show-cause notice under the demand provision is a prerequisite to fix service tax and interest; where only a penalty notice was issued under the penalty regime, the revisional authority cannot validly pass an order demanding service tax with interest because the penalty notice cannot substitute for a demand-stage show-cause notice.