2023 (3) TMI 578 - AT - Service Tax

Misdeclaration in SVLDR Scheme - Non-payment of Service tax - appellant engaged in providing services as Direct Selling Agent of M/s. Safe Secure Online Marketing Private Limited - no summons were served upon the appellant before filing of the declaration in Form-SVLDRS-I under the Scheme - HELD THAT - The issue herein is squarely covered by the ruling of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. New India Civil Erectors Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (3) TMI 545 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Further, it is observed that no mis-declaration has been found in the declaration filed under the Scheme by the appellant. Further, no enquiry was pending against the appellant as on the date of filing of the declaration under the scheme. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the appellant was eligible to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and whether the appellant suppressed facts regarding pending investigation while applying for settlement under the scheme.

Issue 1: Eligibility under SVLDR Scheme:
The appellant, engaged in providing services as a Direct Selling Agent, did not pay service tax on a gross turnover during a specific period. The appellant filed a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme and deposited the tax liability as directed. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued alleging short payment of service tax and proposing a penalty. The Asstt. Commissioner found that the appellant had correctly declared and discharged the tax liability under the SVLDR Scheme. The Revenue contended that the appellant was not eligible for the scheme due to pending investigation and non-quantification of duty/tax before a specified date. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the appellant was not eligible for the scheme. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Suppression of Facts:
The Revenue alleged that the appellant suppressed facts regarding the issuance of summons before applying for settlement under the SVLDR Scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the Revenue's contention, stating that the appellant was not eligible for the scheme due to pending investigation and non-quantification of duty/tax before a specified date. The appellant argued that no summons or inquiry was initiated against them before the relevant date, and no false statements were found. The appellant relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in a similar case to support their argument.

In the final decision, the Tribunal found that the issue was covered by the Bombay High Court's ruling in a similar case. It was noted that no mis-declaration was found in the appellant's declaration under the SVLDR Scheme, and no pending enquiry existed against the appellant at the time of filing the declaration. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the original order.

[Operative portion of the order already pronounced in open court]