9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the said service and that the period for the alleged default is also same. Thus it becomes clear that a notice has already been issued to the appellant in respect of the same issue for the same period for which the appellant made the declaration under VCES-I - The said declaration is prohibited under proviso 2 to Section 106(1) of VCES 2013 - Adjudicating Authority below are held to have committed no error while rejecting the said VCES Scheme. Time Limitation - Held that:- The time limit for issuing notice u/s 101 of VCES will be applicable if and only if the assesse is entitled to file the VCES - Once it is apparent on record that rejection of VCES of appellant is correct due to a wrong declaration and non compliance of statutory pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 22.05.2018. Being aggrieved, the Appeal in hand have been filed. The said rejection of VCES was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 1 dated 18.05.2015. Being aggrieved the appeal was preferred before Commissioner(Appeals) who vide Order No. 53 dated 31.05.2018 has upheld the Order of rejection. Still being aggrieved Appeal is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Rahul Lekhwani, Ld. Advocate for the appellant who has mentioned that the VCES-I of appellant has been rejected by the Department relying upon second proviso to Section 106(1) of Finance Act, 2013 on the ground that it involved the same issue for the subsequent period as of that involved in Show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2011, consequent to audit conducted in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are 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 disclosed amount of Service tax or any part thereof, shall not be eligible to make declaration for the period covered by the said return: Provided further that where a notice or any order of determination has been issued to a person in respect of any period on any issue, no declaration shall be made of his tax dues on the same issue for any subsequent period. Section 106 is an enabling provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2009 to 31.03.2010. Vide the impugned VCES-I, the appellant has declared his tax dues of ₹ 4,50,756 against the renting of immovable property services for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2010. This perusal makes it clear that it is not merely that the category of service rendered is same but the allegation of not discharging the tax liability for rendering the said service and that the period for the alleged default is also same. Thus it becomes clear that a notice has already been issued to the appellant in respect of the same issue for the same period for which the appellant made the declaration under VCES-I. In view thereof I am of the firm opinion that the said declaration is prohibited under proviso 2 to Section 106(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
