9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 236 - HC - Service TaxSVLDRS - Eligibility of the petitioner or maintainability of its declaration to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit - quantification of the service tax dues of the petitioner for the related period was not quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res-integra where it was held that Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India 2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. Thus, it is evident that all that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit. Matter remanded back to the designated authority to consider the declaration of the petitioner in terms of the scheme as a valid declaration under the category of investigation, enquiry and audit and thereafter, grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the petitioner to file a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. 2. Whether the service tax dues of the petitioner were quantified on or before the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019. 3. The requirement of providing an opportunity for a personal hearing before rejecting a declaration under the scheme. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of the Petitioner to File a Declaration: The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 10th February 2020, which rejected its declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner, a company providing immovable properties on rent, was under investigation for alleged short payment of service tax from April 2015 to March 2017. The petitioner claimed to have paid a total of ?11,34,54,732.00 and filed a declaration under the "investigation, enquiry or audit" category of the scheme on 30th December 2019, stating that the tax dues to be paid after adjustments would be "Nil." However, the Designated Committee rejected the declaration on the grounds of ineligibility, stating that the investigation was still ongoing as per the DGGI report. 2. Quantification of Service Tax Dues: The respondents argued that the service tax dues were quantified only upon issuance of a show cause notice on 2nd November 2020, which was after the cut-off date of 30th June 2019. The petitioner contended that the service tax liability was admitted by its Director in statements recorded on 24th November 2016 and 11th May 2017, which should be considered as quantification under the scheme. The court referred to previous judgments, including Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India and M/s G.R. Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, which clarified that "quantified" means a written communication of the amount of duty payable, including a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted during enquiry, investigation, or audit. The court found that the petitioner's service tax liability was admitted before the cut-off date, making the petitioner eligible to file the declaration. 3. Requirement of Personal Hearing: The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for a personal hearing before rejecting a declaration under the scheme. It cited the judgment in Thought Blurb, which held that summary rejection without a hearing would violate principles of natural justice. The court noted that the Designated Committee should have given the petitioner a chance to explain why its declaration should be accepted and relief under the scheme extended. Conclusion: The court set aside the order dated 10th February 2020 and remanded the matter back to the designated authority to consider the petitioner's declaration as a valid one under the "investigation, enquiry, and audit" category. The respondents were directed to provide an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order within six weeks. The writ petition was allowed to this extent, with no order as to costs.
|
