9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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. When there is a provision for granting personal hearing in a case where the declarant disputes the estimated amount, it would be in complete defiance of logic and contrary to the very object of the scheme to reject a declaration on the ground of being ineligible without giving a chance to the declarant to explain as to why its declaration should be accepted and relief under the scheme be extended to him. Matter remitted back to the respondents (designated authority) to consider the declaration of the petitioner dated 08.12.2019 afresh as a valid declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of investigation, inquiry and audit and thereafter grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner. While doing so, respondent No.1 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order with due communication to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand. - WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 848 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record dated 09.04.2019, petitioner had agreed to produce financial documents for the period from 2013-14 to 2017-18 by 22.04.2019 but failed to submit the same before the investigating authority. Therefore, as per section 125(1)(e) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, since the amount of duty involved had not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019, petitioner was not eligible to avail benefit under the scheme. As such, the designated committee was justified in rejecting such declaration of the petitioner. 9. When this matter was heard on 27.01.2021, we had passed the following order:- 2. Petitioner had filed declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit . The declaration has been rejected by the Designated Committee on the ground that that amount of tax dues was not quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Director of the petitioner Shri. Surajpal Singh had got his statement recorded before the respondents on 9th April, 2019, wherein he admitted the service tax dues to the extent of ₹ 40 to ₹ 45 lakhs. Thus the tax dues we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. 50. In that view of the matter, we have 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report etc. 15. Finally in Saksham Facility Private Limited Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-2108-HC-MUM-ST , 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 facts of the present case we find that there is clear admission / acknowledgment by the petitioner about the service tax liability. The acknowledgment 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 45 lakhs subject to verification of books of accounts which liability he undertook to pay as per the time line given in his answer. We also find that upon conclusion of investigation, Ccommissionerate of CGST and Central Excise, Palghar had issued a show-cause cum demand notice to the petitioner on 26.06.2020 wherein reference was made to the said statement of Mr. Surajpal Singh recorded on 09.04.2019 and his admission that net service tax liability for the period under consideration would be approximately ₹ 40 to 45 lakhs. 18. The admission of the petitioner of net service liability of ₹ 40 to 45 lakhs broadly corresponds to the figure disclosed by the petitioner in the declaration i.e ₹ 43,37,865.00. In this connection, we may refer to our decision in case of Sabareesh Pallikere Vs. Jurisdictional Designated Committee, Thane Commissionerate (Civil Writ Petition (St) No. 5510 of 2020 decided on 11.02.2021) wherein we have held as under:- 22. In so far the present case is concerned, we may refer to the first statement of the petitioner recorded on 06.07.2018. In this statement, he categorically admitted that the total service tax liability of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 127 in a case where the amount estimated by the Designated Committee exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then an intimation has to be given to the declarant in the specified form about the estimate determined by the Designated Committee which is required to be paid by the declarant. However, before insisting on payment of the excess amount or the higher amount the Designated Committee is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the declarant. In a situation when the amount estimated by the Designated Committee is in excess of the amount declared by the declarant an opportunity of hearing is required to be given by the Designated Committee to the declarant, then it would be in complete defiance of logic and contrary to the very object of the scheme to outrightly reject an application (declaration) on the ground of being ineligible without giving a chance to the declarant to explain as to why his application (declaration) should be accepted and relief under the scheme should be extended to him. Summary rejection of an application without affording any opportunity of hearing to the declarant would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Rejection of applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
