9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the tax payable and due to the petitioner as declared under the said VCES, 2013 was paid before the date of promulgation itself on 10.5.2013. The reasons assigned in the impugned order by the said Assistant Commissioner is quoted below for ready reference:- "5. I have gone through the declaration filed by the declarant in Form VCES-1 dated 31- 12-2013; worksheet; E-payment challans; reply dated 23-01-2014 and 11-02-2014 and the submission made during the personal hearing. The declarant had declared the tax dues of Rs. 93,85,591/- pertaining to the period from April 2010 to December 2012 and made the payment of tax dues declared under VCES-1 before 10th May 2013 excepting challan No.00345 dated 24- 06-2013 for Rs. 138/-. 6. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme, 2013, I reject the declaration filed by the declarant, in Form VCES-1 dated 31-12-2013, in terms of Section 106(2) read with Section 106(1) of Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013), Chapter VI, Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013." 2. Mr. Sunil P. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 105(e) and Clause 106 of the Finance Act, 2013 (Act) of VCES, 2013 only stipulates that the tax due for the period from 1st October 2007 to 31st December 2012, which was due and not paid as on 1st March 2013 , was required to be paid by the petitioner and that no notice or order of determination under Section 72 or Section 73 or Section 73A of the said Act would have been initiated against the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, however tried to support the impugned order and submitted that the adjudication of liability of interest and penalty a s envisaged in the said clarification issued by CBEC dated 8.8.2013 was later on taken up by the concerned Authorities. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Annexure-L dated 10.3.2014 deserves to be quashed. The reasons are as follows:- (i) Firstly, there is no prohibition in VCES, 2013 itself for the Service Tax demand due, and payable for the period October 2007 to December 2012, which was due and payable as on 1.3.2013, and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are quoted below for ready reference:- " 105(1)(e) .- "tax dues" means the service tax due or payable under the Chapter or any other amount due or payable under section 73A thereof, for the period beginning including a cess leviable thereon under any other Act for the time being in force, but not paid as on the 1st day of March, 2013. Person who may make declaration of tax dues. 106. (1) Any person may declare his tax dues in respect of which no notice or an order of determination under section 72 or section 73 or section 73A of the Chapter has been issued or made before the 1st day of March, 2013. Provided that any person who has furnished return under section 70 of the Chapter and disclosed his true liability, but has not paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent - Assistant Commissioner. (vi) The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court dealt with almost a similar controversy and held in the case of Sadguru Construction Co. (supra), as under:- "11. Combined reading of section 106 with section 105(1)(e) would make it clear that the position of a declarant vis-a-vis his service tax dues would have to be ascertained as on 1.3.2013. If any proceedings for determination of the tax dues of a person have been initiated before 1.3.2013, declaration of such a person would not be accepted. Likewise, arrear of tax which could be declared in such declaration would be the service tax due or payable for the period between 1.10.2007 to 31.12.2012 and which sum is not paid before 1.3.2013. In plain ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion two of the essential conditions were that the proceedings for either declaration or recovery of the tax dues should not be pending on 1.3.2013 and secondly that the tax should not have been deposited before the said date. In the present case, both the conditions were fulfilled. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the rejection of the Declaration of the petitioner under VCES, 2013 by the respondent- Assistant Commissioner was unjustified and cannot be sustained and the Writ Petition therefore deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. 8. The impugned order passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mangalore, vide Annexure-L dated 10.3.2014 is qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
