9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that 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. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is found that in the course of the investigation, statement of Shri. Nipun Radhu, authorized representative of the petitioner was recorded on 26.11.2018 by the Senior Intelligence Officer in the office of DGGI. The statement was recorded under section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. In the course of his statement, the authorized representative acknowledged that service tax liability of the petitioner for the year 2016-17 was to the tune of ₹ 1,61,01,194.00 and for the year 2017-18 (upto June, 2018), the service tax liability was to the extent of ₹ 14,60,823.00. This admission was reiterated by Shri. Nipun Radhu in his subsequent statement recorded on 13.03.2019. Both the stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 ₹ 1,61,01,194.00 and for the period 2017 to June-2018 at ₹ 14,60,823.00. He explained that due to non-availability of funds, petitioner could not discharge the liability in time but assured that those would be paid before 28.02.2019. 5. Similar statement of Shri. Nipun Radhu was recorded on 13.03.2019, where also he admitted service tax liability of ₹ 1,61,01,194.00 for the financial year 2016-17 and an amount of ₹ 14,60,823.00 for the year 2017-18 (upto June 2017). 6. When the scheme was introduced through the Finance ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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 dues was not quantified on or before 30.06.2019 is no longer res integra. 14. In Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India, 2020 (10) TMI 1135 , this Court faced with a similar issue had referred to the relevant provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 as well as to the circular dated 27.08.2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (briefly the Board hereinafter) whereafter it was held as under:- 47. Reverting back to the circular dated 27th August, 2019 of the Board, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2018 by the investigating authority admitted the service tax liability of ₹ 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 investigation was still going on and the duty amount was pending for quantification would not be justified. 28. This position has also been explained by the department itself in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Question Nos.3 and 45 and the answers provided thereto are relevant and those are reproduced hereunder :- Q3. If an enquiry or investigation or audit has started but the tax dues have not been quantified whether the person is eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x liability for the period from 2015-16 upto June, 2017 with further clarification that an amount of ₹ 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 required for being eligible in terms of the scheme under the above category is a written communication which will mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable including a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit. For eligibility under the scheme, the quantification need not be on completion of investigation by issuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
