9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1122 - HC - Service TaxScope of two SCN - different subject matter in both SCN - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS), 2019 - petitioner contends that since the contracts of the petitioner with CIPL were the subject matter of the first show cause notice, the second show cause notice with respect to free of cost supplies under the contract with CIPL and/or with respect to constitution of NOIDA does not constitute a different matter but is the same matter - HELD THAT - Though it is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in any case, qua free of cost supplies there is no taxation element as held in COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT has been held to be a corporation and thus the said questions are no longer res integra but we are of the opinion that in the challenge at this stage, we are not required to go into the merits of the grounds urged in the impugned show cause notice. The counsel for the respondents seeks time to show case law on, how the words same matter or different matter are to be interpreted in the context of the SVLDRS i.e. liberally or restrictively. List on 15th March, 2021.
Issues: Impugning a notice under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) for the same matter and period. Interpretation of "same matter" under Section 129(1)(c) of SVLDRS.
In this case, the petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Additional Director General of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the grounds of being for the same matter and period as covered under the SVLDRS. The petitioner contended that the second notice could not have been issued as it related to matters already covered by the first notice under the SVLDRS. The petitioner provided works contract services during a specific period and had already settled a portion of the tax demanded under the SVLDRS. The second notice raised demands related to "free of cost" supplies under agreements with specific parties and the tax payable thereon. The petitioner argued that the second notice was based on the premise of full disclosure not being made before the first notice, which was applicable only in the "voluntary disclosure" category, not the "litigation" category under which the petitioner had applied. The respondents clarified that the second notice was not issued due to a lack of full disclosure but because the Discharge Certificate under SVLDRS is conclusive only for matters covered by the declaration, not for different matters for the same period. The respondents argued that the first notice did not cover certain aspects related to "free of cost" supplies and the status of a party as a body corporate, which led to the issuance of the second notice. The interpretation of "same matter" under Section 129(1)(c) of SVLDRS was crucial in determining the validity of the second notice. The court noted that the term "same matter" was not defined in the statute, leading to a debate between the petitioner and respondents. The petitioner argued that the second notice pertained to the same matter covered in the first notice, while the respondents contended that aspects like "free of cost" supplies constituted different matters. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the grounds raised in the impugned notice at that stage. The respondents sought time to present case law on interpreting "same matter" in the context of SVLDRS liberally or restrictively, indicating the need for further legal analysis. The case highlighted the complexity of interpreting the scope of "same matter" under SVLDRS and its application in subsequent notices issued for related but distinct aspects of a tax dispute. The court's decision on whether the second notice was valid based on the interpretation of "same matter" would have significant implications for the petitioner's tax liabilities and the application of the SVLDRS in resolving legacy disputes effectively.
|
