2018 (2) TMI 1032 - AT - Service Tax

Voluntary Compliance Entitlement Scheme - declaration under VCES rejected alleging that in the adjudication for the period up to 2007-08, there was a demand of ₹ 1,83,849/- under Works Contract Service and hence the appellant suffered from disqualification under second proviso to Section 106(1) - Held that - the VCES scheme is part and parcel of Finance Act, 1994 and all the provisions of the Finance Act are applicable to the scheme to the extent of specifically excluded - the appellant attracts disqualification because demand was confirmed against him under the WCS for the period 2007-08 which clearly covered under Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, 2013 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of declaration under VCES scheme due to disqualification under second proviso to Section 106(1) of Finance Act, 2013.

Analysis:
The appellant, a registered service provider under Works Contract Service (WCS), filed a declaration under VCES scheme but faced rejection due to alleged disqualification under Section 106(1). The Assistant Commissioner rejected the declaration citing a demand under WCS for 2007-08, leading to disqualification. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the rejection was against the VCES scheme's spirit, emphasizing an inadvertent error in tax calculation and the already paid 50% of the due tax. Reference was made to a relevant case law. Conversely, the Respondent supported the rejection, citing the demand under WCS for 2007-08 as the basis for disqualification.

The Tribunal analyzed the VCES scheme's applicability, noting that all Finance Act provisions apply unless specifically excluded. The Commissioner(Appeals) correctly applied the second proviso to Section 106(2), determining the appellant's disqualification. The show-cause notice and subsequent adjudication for 2007-08 confirmed the demand under WCS, leading to disqualification under Section 106(2).

The Tribunal found the appellant's reliance on a specific case law misplaced, as the confirmed demand under WCS for 2007-08 triggered disqualification per Section 106(2). The Tribunal also dismissed the relevance of CBEC clarifications post-scheme issuance. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the appellant's declaration under VCES was upheld, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the declaration under the VCES scheme due to the appellant's disqualification under the second proviso to Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013. The decision was based on the confirmed demand under WCS for 2007-08, in line with the scheme's provisions and relevant legal interpretations.