2015 (6) TMI 1132 - HC - Service Tax

Voluntary Compliance Entitlement Scheme - the impugned order did not advert to the petitioner s returns to hold that, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of 2013 Voluntary Compliance Scheme - Held that - essentially it is a pure disputed question of fact. The benefit of Voluntary Compliance Scheme would depend upon the nature of the returns submitted by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, a probe into facts and aspects is necessary. Hence, this Court do not find any reason to justify an interference - The petitioner is relegated to their appellate remedy - declining jurisdiction, this writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner impugning Ext.P5 order passed by the respondent regarding service tax liability and rejection of declaration under Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, challenged the Ext.P5 order passed by the respondent regarding service tax liability under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner had not disclosed the liability under Rule 6(3B) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 while filing returns, leading them to seek the benefit of the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 by filing Ext.P2 declaration. The impugned order, Ext.P5, rejected this declaration. The petitioner contended that the order did not consider their returns to determine their eligibility for the 2013 Voluntary Compliance Scheme.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent argued that the crucial issue was whether the dues were duly declared or not, which necessitated verification with reference to the returns. This, in turn, required a factual investigation, indicating that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Commissioner of Appeals.

The Court, after considering the nature of the issues raised, concluded that the matter primarily involved a disputed question of fact. The eligibility for the Voluntary Compliance Scheme hinged on the nature of the returns submitted by the petitioner, indicating the necessity for a detailed factual inquiry. Consequently, the Court found no justification for intervening in the case and declined jurisdiction, disposing of the writ petition and directing the petitioner to pursue their appellate remedy. The Court also specified that the time elapsed during the proceedings before it would be excluded when considering any application for delay, leaving all issues open for further consideration.