9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 990 - HC - Service TaxRejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is submitted that the quantification was communicated to the petitioner for the first time only on September 4, 2019, which is after the cut-off date - whether the e-mail dated March 22, 2018, further correspondence of the respondents vide communication dated April 4, 2018, letter dated September 4, 2018 and the e-mail dated October 31, 2018 is an intimation or written communication for quantification to be eligible for the benefit of the Scheme? HELD THAT - There is nothing reflected from the communications to indicate that duty demand was quantified. There are force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the correspondence/mails referred to by the petitioner prior to the cut-off date are meant only to obtain additional required information by the audit officers during the course of the audit and cannot be termed as quantification of the duty. There is nothing on record to indicate that quantification of duty was done prior to June 30, 2019. The demand of the duty quantified/finalised by the Audit Raigad was only under letter dated August 29, 2019. The respondents categorically denied that the said e-mails are intimation as regards the tax amount having been quantified finally. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that as the petitioner did not provide any further documentary evidence, a letter dated September 4, 2018 was issued to the petitioner for providing necessary clarification. No doubt it is only on the basis of the communications placed on record and the impugned letter that its action is to be justified by the respondents - there are substance in the contention of the respondents that the final quantification in terms of the scheme was done only on August 29, 2019 and not prior to the cut-off date viz. June 30, 2019. In the present facts, it is found that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate and/or there is nothing on record to indicate that the duty liability is admitted by the petitioner. On the contrary, though the amount is quantified by the letter dated August 29, 2019, the petitioner goes ahead and addresses the e-mail dated November 16, 2019 stating that the matter in respect of reversal of credit of ₹ 75 lakhs is under process and that the petitioner will revert back to the respondents shortly. Further, it is mentioned in the said e-mail that the petitioner attached the details of the credit taken within time and the details of credit taken more than 365 days, meaning thereby that even as late as on November 16, 2019, much after the cut-off date, the petitioner still does not admit its liability to pay the duty. In view of the decision in SHRI SIDDHI KUMAR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS 2021 (2) TMI 982 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , we are of the considered view that even on this count, there being no admission of the petitioner as to its liability of duty payable prior to the cut-off date of June 30, 2019, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of the rejection of the petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. 2. Determination of whether the tax dues were quantified before the cut-off date of June 30, 2019. 3. Interpretation of the term "quantified" under Section 121(r) of the Finance Act, 2019. 4. Applicability of various judicial precedents to the facts of the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and Legality of the Rejection of the Petitioner's Application: The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, arguing that the tax dues had been quantified before the cut-off date. The court noted that the scheme was introduced as a one-time measure for the liquidation of past disputes related to Central Excise and Service Tax, providing waivers and immunities for specified legal disputes pending as of June 30, 2019. 2. Determination of Whether the Tax Dues Were Quantified Before the Cut-off Date: The petitioner contended that the tax dues were quantified through various communications, including emails dated April 4, 2018, and October 31, 2018, and a letter dated September 4, 2018. However, the respondents argued that the quantification was finalized only on August 29, 2019, which is after the cut-off date. The court examined the communications and concluded that they were requests for additional information rather than quantifications of duty. 3. Interpretation of the Term "Quantified" Under Section 121(r) of the Finance Act, 2019: The term "quantified" is defined as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. The court referred to the circular dated August 27, 2019, which clarified that "quantified" includes a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation, or audit. The court found that the communications cited by the petitioner did not meet this definition, as they were not final quantifications of duty but merely requests for information. 4. Applicability of Various Judicial Precedents: The petitioner relied on several judicial precedents to support their case. The court distinguished these cases based on their specific facts: - Seventh Plane Networks Private Limited v. Union of India: The court noted that this case involved an oral admission of duty liability before the cut-off date, which was not applicable to the present case. - Saksham Facility Services Private Limited v. Union of India: This case involved a clear admission of service tax liability, which was not present in the current case. - M/s. G.R. Palle Electricals v. Union of India: This case involved an acknowledgment of duty liability by both the petitioner and the department, which was not the situation here. - Thought Blurb v. Union of India: This case involved a mistake in declaring tax dues, which was not relevant to the present facts. - Landmark Associates v. Union of India: This case involved a written communication of duty liability, which was not present in the current case. - Sabareesh Pallikere v. Jurisdictional Designated Committee: This case involved an admission of tax dues before the cut-off date, which was not applicable here. - M/s. Suyog Telematics Limited v. Union of India: This case involved an admitted service tax liability, which was not the situation here. - Joseph Daniel Massey v. Union of India: This case involved a specific mention of service tax amount due, which was not present in the current case. The court also referred to the decision in Shri SiddhiKumar Infrastructure Private Limited v. Union of India, where the petitioner did not admit to the service tax liability before the cut-off date, similar to the present case. Conclusion: The court concluded that the communications cited by the petitioner did not constitute quantification of duty before the cut-off date of June 30, 2019. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
