9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, petitioner s tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 and there are no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. In the present case, the petitioner in its letter dated 10.05.2019 had clearly admitted service tax dues of ₹ 64,72,543.00 for the period under consideration. This acknowledgment or admission by the petitioner was before the cut-off date of 30.06.2019. In fact, in the final audit report dated 07.11.2019, reference has been made to this letter dated 10.05.2019 wherein petitioner had admitted service tax liability of ₹ 64,72,543.00. Though the final audit report may be post 30.06.2019, the admission of the petitioner was certainly prior to 30.06.2019 - rejection of the declaration of the petitioner dated 02.12.2019 by the designated committee on 12.02.2020 is not justified. Petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION (L) NO.4415 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2021 - UJJAL BHUYAN MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. Prasanna Namboodiri a/s. Ms. Hasika Prasad for Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring No.138/2019-2020, which is at page 81 of the paper-book, it was mentioned that assessee (petitioner) vide letter dated 10.05.2019 had assured to discharge the balance liability of ₹ 42,11,330.00 along with interest on the amount of ₹ 64,72,543.00 on or before 10.06.2019. 7. When the scheme was introduced by the central government through the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, petitioner submitted declaration thereunder on 02.12.2019 under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit with sub-categorization of audit . It was mentioned therein that the service tax dues of the petitioner for the related period was ₹ 66,12,543.00 and that pre-deposit of ₹ 34,01,213.00 was made. Therefore, it was claimed that the tax dues after deduction of tax relief under the scheme would be nil. 8. It appears that a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner on 31.12.2019 whereafter respondent No.3 passed the order dated 12.02.2020 rejecting the declaration of the petitioner dated 02.12.2019. It was mentioned that the tax dues were not quantified before 30.06.2019. Therefore, petitioner was ineligible to make the declaration. 9. Aggrieved, present petition has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified that such written communication will include a letter intimating duty demand; or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit; or audit report etc. 48. Thus as per the above clarification, written communication in terms of section 121(r) will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc. This has been also explained in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) prepared by the department on 24th December, 2019. 49. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that on the one hand there is a letter of respondent No.3 to the petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 at ₹ 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of ₹ 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner s tax dues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7th August, 2019]. * * * * Q45. With respect to cases under enquiry, investigation or audit what is meant by written communication quantifying demand ? Ans . Written communication will include a letter intimating duty/tax demand or duty/tax liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report etc. 16. Finally in Saksham Facility Private Limited Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-2108-HC-MUM-ST = 2020 (12) TMI 318 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where a similar issue had cropped up , this Court reiterated the above position and held as under:- 22.3. Clause (g) of paragraph 10 makes it abundantly clear that cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand had been quantified on or before 30.06.2019 would be eligible under the scheme. The word quantified has been defined under the scheme as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. In such circumstances, Board clarified that such written communication would include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc. 23. Reverting back to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
