9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though it is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in any case, qua free of cost supplies there is no taxation element as held in COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [ 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT ] has been held to be a corporation and thus the said questions are no longer res integra but we are of the opinion that in the challenge at this stage, we are not required to go into the merits of the grounds urged in the impugned show cause notice. The counsel for the respondents seeks time to show case law on, how the words same matter or different matter are to be interpreted in the context of the SVLDRS i.e. liberally or restrictively. List on 15th March, 2021. - HON'BLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e SVLDRS aforesaid was introduced and which came into effect w.e.f. 1st September, 2019; (v) the petitioner filed declaration thereunder, under the category of litigation and the petitioner, on 5 th March, 2020 was issued the statement, SVLDRS-3 , whereunder the amount payable by the petitioner was determined as ₹ 2,67,29,046.50/-, being 50% of the tax demanded of ₹ 5,34,58,093/- in the notice dated 23 rd April, 2019 supra; (vi) the petitioner, on 15th May, 2020 deposited the aforesaid sum of ₹ 2,67,29,046.50/- and was issued a Discharge Certificate in Form SVLDRS-4, under Section 127(8) of the SVLDRS; (vii) it is thereafter that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 10th July, 2020 was issued, for the same matter and perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the SVLDRS, is conclusive only for the matter and the time period covered by the declaration of the petitioner not qua a different matter for the same time period, not covered by the declaration. He has argued that the first show cause notice did not pertain to free of cost component of the contract of the petitioner with CIPL and was on the statement of the petitioner, of NOIDA being a body corporate and which, on further investigation, has not been found to be so. It is thus argued that Section 129(2)(b) of the SVLDRS is applicable in the matter of issuing the second show cause notice. 7. On enquiry, we are informed that the words same matter are not defined in the statute. 8. The counsel for the petitioner contends that since the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
