9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing event management services to its customers. Being a service provider, it was registered as such under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Service tax department initiated investigation against the petitioner for the period 01.04.2013 to 30.06.2017 alleging short payment of service tax. It is stated that during the course of investigation, Shri. Nipun Radhu, authorised representative of the petitioner, made a statement on 26.11.2018 under section 83 of Chapter -V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) before the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Mumbai. In response to question No.5 pertaining to service tax liability for the period under consideration, he stated that service tax liability for the period 2013- 14 to 2015-16 had been discharged, however, interest for late payment for the financial year 2015-16 was yet to be paid. That apart, he quantified the service tax liability for the financial year 2016-17 at Rs. 1,61,01,194. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which have been annexed to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that following the said decisions, Court may interfere with the rejection of the petitioner's declaration and direct the designated committee to consider the declaration of the petitioner as a valid declaration and thereafter grant the necessary relief(s). 11. On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel for the respondents has extensively referred to the reply affidavit and submits that there has to be quantification of the dues of the petitioner by the proper authority either in the form of a show cause notice or through adjudication. Mere acknowledgment of any amount stated to be due and payable by the petitioner cannot be construed to be quantification of dues. He, therefore, supports the impugned decision of the designated committee. 12. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 13. Question as to whether eligibility of a declarant for making a declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of 'investigation, enquiry or audit' or maintainability of such a declaration on the ground that the amount of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner 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." 15. Subsequently in M/s. G. R. Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-2031-HC-MUM-ST = 2020 (11) TMI 845 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, this Court held as follows:- "27. We have already noticed that proprietor of the petitioner in his statement recorded on 11.01.2018 by the investigating authority admitted the service tax liability of Rs. 60 lakhs (approximately) to be outstanding for the period from 2015-2016 to June, 2017. This was corroborated by the departmental authority in the letter dated 24.01.2018 which we have already noted and discussed. Therefore, present is a case where there is acknowledgment by the petitioner of the duty liability as well as by the department in its communication to the petitioner. Thus, it can be said that in the case of the petitioner the amount of duty involved had been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. In such circumstances, rejection of the application (declaration) of the petitioner on the ground of being ineligible with the remark that investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment is dated 27.06.2019 i.e., before 30.06.2019 both in the form of letter by the petitioner as well as statement of its Director, Shri. Sanjay R. Shirke. In fact, on a pointed query by the Senior Intelligence Officer as to whether petitioner accepted and admitted the revised service tax liability of Rs. 2,47,32,456.00, the Director in his statement had clearly admitted and accepted the said amount as the service tax liability for the period from 2015-16 upto June, 2017 with further clarification that an amount of Rs. 1,20,60,000.00 was already paid. * * * * * 26. Following the above it is evident that the word 'quantified' under the scheme would mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report and not necessarily the amount crystalized following adjudication. Thus, petitioner was eligible to file the declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit as its service tax dues stood quantified before 30.06.2019." 17. From the above it is evident that all that would be requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
