Mere Non-Reflection Of Income In ST-3 Doesn’t Amount To Deliberate Suppression, Limitation Period Can’t Be Invoked: CESTAT

HomeIndirect TaxesMere Non-Reflection Of Income In ST-3 Doesn’t Amount To Deliberate Suppression, Limitation...

Mere Non-Reflection Of Income In ST-3 Doesn’t Amount To Deliberate Suppression, Limitation Period Can’t Be Invoked: CESTAT

Indirect Taxes

Published on

19/01/2026

By Mariya Paliwala

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that mere non-reflection of income in ST-3 returns, without establishing taxability, cannot be equated with deliberate suppression. The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that the limitation period cannot be extended mechanically, merely because some discrepancy is noticed in…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Deliberate Suppression

Mere Non-Reflection Of Income In ST-3 Doesn’t Amount To Deliberate Suppression, Limitation Period Can’t Be Invoked: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

Legality of Gold Confiscation Based on Retracted Statement Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Frames 8 Substantial Questions of Law

GST Bank Attachment Can’t Continue Beyond 1 Year: Delhi High Court

More like this

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

Legality of Gold Confiscation Based on Retracted Statement Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Frames 8 Substantial Questions of Law

About us

Company

Categories