9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to find favour with the Revenue s contention. VCES - requirement of 50% of the disclosed income to be deposited at the time of filing of declaration - assessee has voluntarily deposited the said amount prior to 10.05.2013 - HELD THAT:-The issue is covered by not only Hon ble Gujarat High Court in SADGURU CONSTRUCTION CO. 1 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 [ 2014 (5) TMI 219 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] but also by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in PREMIER ASSOCIATES VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [ 2018 (2) TMI 408 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and Hon ble Bombay High Court in DR. YESHWANT DHUME, VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX, DESIGNATED AUTHORITY VCES CELL, [ 2018 (12) TMI 1042 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] laying down that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relying upon the Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Satguru Construction Co. vs. Union of India - 2014 - TIOL - 630 SC Ahmd.-ST, held that the amount deposited prior to 10.05.2013 are to be taken into consideration for the purposes of adjudging the assessees liability of deposit of 50% of the disclosed income. He accordingly, allowed the assessees appeal, which stands impugned by the Revenue. 4. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue has submitted that two issues are involved in the present appeal. First issue relates to the assessees right of filing an appeal against the order of the designated authority in respect of an order passed by him under the VCES Scheme. Elaborating on his argument, he submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is distinguishable on facts. While drawing our attention to the said decision, he submits that the assessee in that case had deposited the dues prior to 10.05.2013, under duress, whereas the deposit in the present case is voluntary. He submits that the fact of deposit of dues prior to 10.05.2013 under duress was the reason Hon ble Gujarat High Court to hold that the said deposits would be countable towards 50% of the deposit. As such, he submits that the said decision, which stands followed by the Commissioner (Appeals), is distinguishable on facts. 6. Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the law having been declared by Punjab Haryana High Court, is holding the fiel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
