9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be liable to tax under the head 'Supply of Tangible Goods Services'. Since the petitioner had not obtained a registration under this head, a show cause notice had been issued proposing assessment as aforesaid for the period April 2008 to March 2013, invoking extended period of limitation. 2. In the course of investigation, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 66,05,012/- towards tax liability and a sum of Rs. 16,58,328/- towards interest. A show cause notice was issued and after hearing the petitioner, an order-in-original was passed on 16.09.2014 confirming the proposals in the notice. An appeal is stated to have been filed before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, which is pending. 3. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; (b) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice for late fee or penalty only, and the amount of duty in the said notice has been paid or is nil, then, the entire amount of late fee or penalty; (c) where the tax dues are relatable to an amount in arrears and,- (i) the amount of duty is, rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. Of the tax dues; (ii) the amount of duty is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues; (iii) in a return under the indirect tax enactment, wherein the declarant has indicated an amount of duty as payable but not paid it and the duty amount indicated is,- (A) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted amounts of Rs. 66.05 and Rs. 16.58 lakhs as deposits even prior to the issuance of show cause notice. However, the petitioner has specifically demarcated the amount of Rs. 66.05 lakhs as towards tax and Rs. 16.58 lakhs as towards interest. Thus the respondent, while accepting the eligibility of the petitioner to the benefit of the Scheme, has proceeded to ignore the amount of Rs. 16.58 lakhs, since the amount has been credited under the accounting head relevant for interest payments. 8. Having heard learned counsel, I am of the view that this writ petition must be allowed for the following reasons: (i) Section 124(2) comes to the aid of the petitioner. It envisages two kinds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a substantive issue. (v) Moreover, the object of the scheme should not be lost sight of, as the scheme has itself been formulated for the smooth settlement of disputes. Interpretation of the provisions thereof should be to carry forward the object rather than to frustrate the same, giving rise to more litigation. 9. Interestingly, had the declaration filed by the petitioner been accepted, there would have been a total waiver of interest liability, as per the Scheme. Thus if only petitioner had remitted the entire amount of Rs. 82,63,340/- (Rs. 66.05 plus Rs. 16.58 lakhs) towards tax, the respondent would have simply given credit to the entire amount, waiving interest liability in full. It is the apportionment that has given rise to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
