9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er period cannot be utilized to reject the application as is now made by the present writ petitioner. The application invoking VCES has to be considered and if at all rejected, it must be on the touchstone of the paragraphs of the VCES, 2013 and the wording thereof. The scheme itself cannot be defeated by holding that on the earlier occasion parties like the petitioners have accepted their liability. The authorities need not be so anxious to protect the government revenue and reject the applications, as are made in the present case by closing the files instantaneously. They have to apply their mind. They must consider the application in accordance with the paragraphs of the scheme. - Matter restored before the authorities. - WRIT PETITI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners claim that certain expenditure is incurred by them for their clients which is reimbursed by the clients. The petitioners claim is that they did not recover service tax and that was not paid on the reimbursement of their expenses. The petitioners were of the view that such reimbursement is not subject to service tax. 6 Upon an audit conducted in the premises of the petitioners in December 2008 and January 2009 by the office of the service tax department for the period 2005-2006 to 2007- 2008, the petitioners were called upon to pay service tax. The petitioners submitted that they paid an amount of ₹ 13,33,972/- along with interest. This was to neutralize the revenue impact. Their case is that the monitoring commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (for short VCES 2013). Certain sections of the Finance Act are relied upon to submit that the term tax due as defined in para 105(e) denotes service tax due or payable under the Chapter or any other amount due or payable under Section 73(a) thereof for the period beginning from 1st October, 2007 and ending on 31st December, 2012 including a cess leviable thereon under any other Act for the time being in force, but not paid as on the 1st March, 2015. 12 The argument is that the application is not rejected on the ground of non-compliance with paragraph 106(2). It is stated that by Paragraph 106(1) any person may declare his tax dues in respect of which no notice or an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mr. Raichandani would submit that relying upon the past audit, and the payment made in respect thereof cannot be relied upon so as to reject the application which is for a distinct period. It is an admitted position that the past audit is for the period 20th May, 2006 to 20th July, 2008, the application that is filed is for the period of April 2008 to December 2012. The reason that during the current audit declarant i.e. the petitioner has again failed to pay service tax on the same issue therefore cannot be legally sound for rejecting the application. 16 The only argument to counter this and raised by Mr. Bangur is that at page 84 of the paper book when the summary of the audit result was brought to the notice of the petitioner, he ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
