2019 (11) TMI 11 - HC - Service Tax

Applicability of provisions of Section 106(2A) of the Finance Act, 2013 - no inquiry had been initiated against the respondents herein to warrant rejection of the declaration made under the VCES scheme. Maintainability of declaration - whether the information sought from M/s.Marvel Realtors was an inquiry of roving nature and, therefore, the declaration ought to have been accepted? HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX PUNE I COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS MARVEL LANDMARKS PVT. LTD., M/S. MARVEL SIGMA HOMES PVT. LTD. 2019 (5) TMI 164 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that The Tribunal found that the enquiry being made in respect of the respondents were in nature of roving enquiry, not hit by Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, 2013. In view of above questions, these questions as proposed do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 106(2A) of the Finance Act, 2013
2. Acceptance of declaration under the VCES scheme based on information sought

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order by the Tribunal regarding the interpretation of Section 106(2A) of the Finance Act, 2013. The Revenue questioned whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the said provisions were not attracted due to the absence of an inquiry against the respondents. The appellant contended that the declaration made under the VCES scheme should have been rejected. However, the counsel for the appellant acknowledged that the facts and law were similar in all four cases, including the present appeal and two others. The High Court had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal in those cases on identical questions, indicating no substantial difference in facts or law that would necessitate a different view.

2. The second issue raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in considering the information sought from a specific entity as an inquiry of a roving nature and consequently accepting the declaration. The High Court, based on its previous decisions in similar cases, found no substantial question of law arising from this issue. The Court noted that the questions proposed did not warrant further consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasized the consistency in the application of law and facts across the cases, resulting in the rejection of the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the position taken in previous similar cases and finding no grounds to entertain the questions raised by the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistent application of law and reiterated the decision made in earlier cases involving comparable issues.