9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 4 - HC - Service TaxLegality of issuance of recovery notices - petitioner had applied under the SVLDRS Scheme - HELD THAT - In the present petition, the petitioner has claimed that in fact its application could not have been rejected because the respondents wrote a letter dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure P-10) to one of the supplier of the petitioner calling upon it to stop payment to the petitioner and the amount due may be paid directly to the credit of the Central Goods and Service Tax Department - the said letter does not show final quantification determination and is at best a preliminary figure. No fault can be found with the action of the respondents in refusing to accept the application of the petitioner to be covered under the aforementioned scheme - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to recovery notices issued despite application under SVLDRS Scheme. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition challenging the respondents' action of issuing recovery notices despite applying under the SVLDRS Scheme. The petitioner claimed that during an inquiry by the Anti Evasion CGST, Gurugram, it was revealed that an amount of ?20 Lakhs was due as service tax liability. The petitioner deposited ?2 lakhs and requested five installments to pay the remaining amount. Subsequently, the petitioner applied under the SVLDRS Scheme, but its application was not accepted as the due amount had not been determined. The petitioner argued that its application could not have been rejected based on a letter dated 24.09.2019, where one of its suppliers was asked to pay the due amount directly to the Central Goods and Service Tax Department. The court noted that the letter in question did not provide a final quantification determination of the liability but merely presented a preliminary figure. Therefore, the court held that the action of the respondents in refusing to accept the petitioner's application under the SVLDRS Scheme was justified. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
