2020 (4) TMI 7 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of VCES-Voluntary Compliance encouragement Scheme, 2013 - denial of benefit on the ground of clerical error in filling form VCES-1 - HELD THAT - The benefit of VCES 2013, have been denied by revenue, only for the simple clerical error in filling form VCES-1. The appellant have admittedly deposited the declared amount of tax dues, and they cannot be asked to deposit more tax, which will be against the provisions of service tax law, as well as Article 265 of the Constitution of India - the appellant is entitled to the benefit of VCES 2013. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the benefit of VCES-Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 has been rightly denied to the appellant due to a clerical error in filing the declaration.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of VCES 2013 despite the clerical error in filling form VCES-1.

Analysis:
The main issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI was whether the appellant was rightly denied the benefit of the VCES-Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 due to a clerical error in filing the declaration. The appellant had mistakenly failed to adjust or reduce the gross amount of tax payable with the amount of tax already paid, resulting in an incorrect figure of tax dues reflected in form VCES-1. The appellant had deposited an amount higher than the declared tax dues, and the counsel argued that the appellant should not be denied the benefit of VCES due to a simple clerical error. The Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order in appeal.

Upon consideration of the arguments and perusal of records, Member (Judicial) Mr. Anil Choudhary found that the benefit of VCES 2013 had been denied by the revenue solely due to a clerical error in filling form VCES-1. The appellant had deposited the declared amount of tax dues, and requiring them to deposit more tax would be contrary to the provisions of service tax law and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and it was held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of VCES 2013. The appellant was also declared entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appellant successfully argued that despite the clerical error in filing the declaration, they should not be denied the benefits of the VCES 2013. The Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with the tax dues and should not be asked to pay more, as it would go against the legal provisions and constitutional principles. The decision was in favor of the appellant, granting them the benefit of the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013, and consequential benefits as per the law.