9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts made by the petitioner. The petitioner has made payments in the months of April, May, June, till December, 2017 and on all these dates several payments are made towards the declared amount. If these payments are taken note of, then the computation of interest determined by the respondent No.4 runs contrary to Section 110 of Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013. On perusal of these payments made by the petitioner, prima facie, this Court finds that the interest is computed on the declared amount. In fact this Court is of the view that the interest should have been computed on unpaid dues and not on declared amount. Since the impugned notice clearly gives an indication that interest is levied without taking note o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... INR 4,06,781/- recovered illegally vide demand draft No.062127 on February 14, 2020 with interest as being ex-facie arbitrary and in sheer violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The brief facts leading to the top noted writ petition are as under: The case of the petitioner is that he is engaged in Event Management Service and Air Travel Agent Service and accordingly has obtained registration under the erstwhile Service Tax regime and the registration number was AAKCS0499QST001. The petitioner has averred in para 4 of the writ petition that the Legislature has introduced Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (for short VCES ) and accordingly, the petitioner to have benefit under the scheme for the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r contended that respondent No.1 - Department has communicated the receipt of notice of recovery to the respondent No.6 Bank, which in turn has sent mail to the present petitioner indicating that there is a notice for recovery of sum of ₹ 17,29,765/- which is towards interest amount on the declared amount. It appears that the petitioner being aggrieved by this impugned recovery notice has filed the top noted writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Prashanth Shivadas, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court, without going into the other aspects relating to the 2019 Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned notice clearly gives an indication that interest is levied without taking note of partial payments, I am of the view that the order under challenge is not sustainable and the same needs to be quashed with a direction to the respondent No.4 to re-compute the interest by taking note of the payments made on various dates towards the declared amount. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of admitted payments made by the petitioner, the amount due would not cross over and above ₹ 5 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that interest computation comes to ₹ 7,03,733.58/-. Further, he would submit that the Authority has already recovered an amount of ₹ 4,06, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
