2017 (12) TMI 1442 - AT - Service Tax

Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) - rejection of the application - Appellant submitted that, merely because the appellant had been issued with a notice for the earlier period, would not mean that the First Proviso to subsection (1) of Section 106 of the Finance Act, would come into operation - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of Durgapur Diesel Sales & Service & Another Versus Superintendent (Service Tax) Central Excise Durgapur I Division & Others 2015 (2) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT where it was held that The second proviso envisaged an embargo in making a declaration even for a subsequent period on the same issue - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of VCES application by Commissioner (A)
- Interpretation of provisions of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013
- Application of provisos to subsection (1) of Section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a VCES application by the Commissioner (A) and upholding of the Order-in-Original. The appellant had declared tax dues under VCES relating to security agency services for a specific period. However, the Department issued a show-cause notice for the same services for an earlier period, invoking the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 106 of the Act. The appellant argued that the rejection of their application was incorrect, emphasizing that the earlier notice did not pertain to the period covered by their VCES declaration. They contended that the scheme aimed to collect dues from non-compliant taxpayers and should not be defeated by prior notices. The appellant cited a relevant case to support their argument.

The respondent defended the rejection of the VCES application, stating that the case did not meet the scheme's parameters and fell under the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 106. Reference was made to a High Court decision supporting the rejection under VCES based on similar grounds.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal focused on determining whether the rejection of the VCES application was justified. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of Section 106, particularly the provisos, to assess the legality of the rejection. It noted that the Commissioner (A) had relied on a previous case to reject the application, emphasizing that the earlier show-cause notice and the VCES declaration pertained to the same issue and services. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and upheld the dismissal of the appeal, concluding that the rejection was legally sustainable based on the provisos to Section 106.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the VCES application, citing the applicability of the provisos to subsection (1) of Section 106 and the similarity of issues in the earlier notice and the VCES declaration. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering prior notices and the scope of the VCES scheme in determining the eligibility of taxpayers for voluntary compliance.