9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, shall be deducted when issuing the final settlement. In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted amounts of ₹ 66.05 and ₹ 16.58 lakhs as deposits even prior to the issuance of show cause notice. However, the petitioner has specifically demarcated the amount of ₹ 66.05 lakhs as towards tax and ₹ 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 ₹ 16.58 lakhs, since the amount has been credited under the accounting head relevant for interest payments. Interestingly, had the declaration filed by the petitioner been accepted, there would have been a total waiver of int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period April 2008 to March 2013, invoking extended period of limitation. 2. In the course of investigation, the petitioner deposited a sum of ₹ 66,05,012/- towards tax liability and a sum of ₹ 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. In the meanwhile, the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2018 (Scheme) was announced by the Government providing for the settlement of pending disputes. The petitioner availed of the Scheme and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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 the tax dues; (B) amount indicated is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty percent. of the tax dues; (d) where the tax dues are linked to an enquiry, invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssuance of show cause notice. However, the petitioner has specifically demarcated the amount of ₹ 66.05 lakhs as towards tax and ₹ 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 ₹ 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 of deductions: firstly, that any pre-deposit made at the stage of appellate proceedings under an indirect tax enactment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself 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 ₹ 82,63,340/- (₹ 66.05 plus ₹ 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 present situation and the petitioner must not be made to suffer on account of this, irrelevant fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
