9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the paper-book which comes to the total figure of ₹ 47,37,377.00. However, at page 43 we find a note that the said service tax liability was not acceptable to the petitioner. From these two documents, no acknowledgment or admission of service tax liability by the petitioner is discernible. Also, the petitioner has stated about the details of royalty paid to the government and service tax / GST paid on the said royalty payment - Though learned counsel for the petitioner would like to submit that it was a clerical and inadvertent mistake as instead of the word 'paid' it should have been 'payable', we do not find any such indication either in the writ petition or in any of the documents annexed to the writ petition. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No.4 to reconsider the said declaration and thereafter grant the necessary reliefs. 3. It is stated that petitioner is a company engaged in the business of providing site formation and clearance, excavation, earth moving and demolition services to the clients. Being a service provider, it was registered as such under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. On the allegation that there was short payment of service tax for the period from 01.10.2013 to 30.06.2017, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence vide summons dated 03.01.2019. Petitioner responded to the summons and submitted the relevant documents and information vide letter dated 11.03.2019. Again pursuant to summons da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s therefrom that petitioner had disclosed the details of royalty paid to the government and the service tax / GST payable on the said royalty. In this connection, he has also referred to the break-up of the dues at page 43 of the paper-book wherefrom he submits that service tax liability of the petitioner for the period under consideration was quantified at ₹ 47,37,377.00. He submits that there was quantification of service tax liability before 30.06.2019 and, therefore, respondent No.4 was not justified in rejecting the declaration. 9. Mr. Walve, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the averments made in the reply affidavit to contend that petitioner was not eligible to file declaration and therefore its declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake a declaration under the category of enquiry, investigation or audit. 11.2. Section 121(r) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 defines the word quantified to mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable under an indirect tax enactment which would include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the declarant during enquiry, investigation or audit. This has also been explained by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Board) to mean any admission or acknowledgment of indirect tax dues by the declarant on or before 30.06.2019. 12. In so far the present case is concerned, we find that in response to summons dated 10.04.2019, petitioner had submitted letter dated 04.06.2019 furnishing details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
