9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1118 - HC - Service TaxSeeking reconsideration of declaration of the petitioner filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - eligibility of the petitioner or maintainability of its declaration to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit on the ground that the service tax dues of the petitioner for the related period was not quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of THOUGHT BLURB VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 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. In the present case, Petitioner has stated that it received the email of the said letter dated 15.06.2019 on 29.06.2019 and the physical copy on 01.07.2019. Respondents have taken the stand that because the physical copy was received by the petitioner on 01.07.2019 the quantification would be construed to have been done on 01.07.2019 which was beyond the cut off date of 30.06.2019, thus rendering the petitioner ineligible. In our view, such a construction does not conform to the letter and spirit of the scheme as we have discussed above. The scheme talks about quantification of the tax dues and not communication thereof. The quantification having been done vide letter dated 15.06.2019, receipt of copy thereof whether email or physical becomes immaterial. It is the date of quantification which is relevant because in this case the quantification has been done by the authority. That apart, it was clarified by the Board that since 30.06.2019 was a public holiday being a Sunday, therefore, in terms of section 10(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the relevant date should be considered as 01.07.2019 instead of 30.06.2019. Allegation that the letter dated 15.06.2019 did not indicate complete quantification as per letter of the Anti Evasion Wing dated 20.11.2019 - HELD THAT - In the present case, there is a clear demand made by the respondents upon the petitioner and there is no reason not to accept the said figure as the amount of service tax dues payable by the petitioner for the period under consideration. Opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - The declarant had accepted the determination of tax dues by the designated committee and thus there was no question of providing any personal hearing because no such hearing would be required. In fact in Form SVLDRS No.2A, it is found that the same is a form pertaining to written submissions, waiver of personal hearing and adjournment under section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 read with Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules 2019. From a perusal of the said form, we find that the petitioner had clearly mentioned that it agreed with the estimate made in SVLDRS Form No.2. In such circumstances, the question of availing any personal hearing did not arise. The rejection of the declaration of the petitioner was not justified - matter remanded back to the respondents (designated committee) to consider afresh the declaration of the petitioner dated 13.11.2019 as a valid declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of investigation, inquiry and audit and thereafter grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner. Petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing where-after a speaking order shall be passed - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. 2. Quantification of service tax dues before the cut-off date of 30th June 2019. 3. Rejection of the petitioner's declaration by the designated committee. 4. Adherence to principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of the Petitioner under the Scheme: The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in construction services, sought relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, by filing a declaration on 13.11.2019. The petitioner declared service tax dues of ?39,56,080.00, as intimated by the respondent on 15.06.2019. The designated committee initially estimated the payable amount at ?11,86,824.00, which the petitioner accepted. However, the declaration was rejected on the grounds that the service tax dues were not quantified on or before 30.06.2019. 2. Quantification of Service Tax Dues Before the Cut-off Date: The court examined whether the service tax dues were quantified before the cut-off date of 30th June 2019. The petitioner received the letter quantifying the dues on 29.06.2019 via email and on 01.07.2019 physically. The respondents argued that the physical receipt date of 01.07.2019 rendered the petitioner ineligible. However, the court noted that the scheme required quantification, not communication, by the cut-off date. The quantification was done on 15.06.2019, thus meeting the requirement. 3. Rejection of the Petitioner's Declaration: The rejection was based on the argument that the quantification was not conclusive and was received after the cut-off date. The court referred to previous judgments (Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India, M/s G.R. Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, and Saksham Facility Private Limited Vs. Union of India) which clarified that written communication of the amount of duty payable, including letters intimating duty demand or admitted liability, suffices for quantification. The court found that the petitioner’s dues were indeed quantified before the cut-off date, making the rejection unjustified. 4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice: The court emphasized that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to explain why their declaration should be accepted. The rejection without a hearing violated principles of natural justice. The court highlighted that adverse civil consequences necessitate compliance with natural justice principles, including notice and hearing. Conclusion: The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration was not justified. The order dated 14.05.2020 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the designated committee to reconsider the declaration as valid under the scheme. The petitioner was to be given a hearing, and a speaking order was to be passed within eight weeks. Judgment: The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.
|
