9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckground leading to present petition may be necessary to be referred to in order to have proper perspective of the matter. 4. The petitioner company is engaged in providing services 'Business Auxiliary Services' and is registered with respondents under Service Tax Rules, 1994, and under Central Excise Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "CGST Act") with effect from 1st July, 2017. 5. The petitioner purports to refer to that service tax liability could not be discharged on time, the company being in severe financial crises, internal disputes and other difficulties, while petitioner had provided taxable services to various clients. In the circumstances, proceeding at the instance of department led to a notice to petitioner to show cause as to why income, as reflected in profit and loss account for the financial years 201213, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 should not be treated as taxable service and why service tax amounting to Rs. 9,27,39,338/- be demanded and recovered under provisions of Section 66 read with the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for the period from January, 2013 to March, 2016 and as to why th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nic form an estimate payable by the declarant. Sub-section (3) of Section 127 requires designated committee to give an opportunity of being heard to the declarant, if he so desires, before issuing statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. It further provides for sufficient cause, accommodation of an adjournment. After hearing the declarant, as provided under Section 127(4) a statement in electronic form indicating the amount payable by declarant shall be issued. The provision also requires the declarant to pay the amount payable as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee. On payment being made, and on production of proof of withdrawal of appeal, the committee is supposed to issue a discharge certificate in electronic form within thirty days thereafter. 9. The scheme appears to have been introduced seeking release of locked up indirect tax revenue demands under litigation from assessees or otherwise as a measure for liquidation of past litigation, inter alia, of Central Excise and Service Tax as well as to have disclosure of unpaid tax by persons eligible under the same for declaration. 10. While the scheme initially did not provide for amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esting to adjust amounts of deposits, as referred to by the petitioner, having regard to the circular dated 12th December, 2019. However, the same was not to any avail. 15. In the circumstances, petitioners tried to have correspondence with Respondent No. 4. A request had also been made to Respondent No. 3 to intervene to have restoration of the matter. Requests were made on 29th June, 2019 and 9th July, 2020. However, those were not responded to. The petitioner lodged their grievance on 25th July, 2020 to Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs at the grievance portal of respondent No. 1, which had been forwarded to respondent No. 3. The same is shown to have been closed on 24th August, 2020 with the remark that petitioner had neither attended hearing fixed for 24th January, 2020 and 6th February, 2020, nor had submitted any proof of payment to the office and based on the records available with the office, the designated committee No. 1 had issued Form No. SVLDRS-3. It is in these circumstances, the Petitioner is before us. 16. Learned counsel Mr. Mashelkar submits that while the petitioner desired personal hearing in support of declaration in Form SVLDRS - 1 over disagreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner had received SLVDRS-2, SLVDRS2B form ought to have been received by him. It is contended that SLVDRS-3 had been issued after due verification and considering the details. It would not be correct to say that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner had failed to attend hearing on 24th January, 2020 and 6th February, 2020 and had not submitted payment receipts and having regard to records available, designated committee had issued SLVDRS-3 determining the amount payable as Rs. 2,93,40,631/- 20. It is submitted that petitioner has declared that notice amount as only Rs. 9,27,39,338/- (wrongly excluding the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess). While the petitioner had opted for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, the designated committee had correctly estimated tax dues on verification and consideration of facts, as has been referred to in the show-cause notice. It has also been referred to that an amount of Rs. 1,83,35,195/- would be required to be appropriated against the service tax dues for the period from January, 2013 to March, 2016. The decision has been taken by following due procedure under the Sabka Vishwas scheme. Petitioner was gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e new GST regime and to give benefit to eligible persons participating in the scheme of waiver of interest, fine, penalty, immunity from prosecution. It has been observed that non compliance of principles of natural justice would impeach the decision making process rendering the decision invalid in law. It has also been observed that basic thrust of the scheme is to unload the baggage of pending litigations of indirect tax as well as excise duty and service tax, with a view to minimise load of pre-GST regime and to keep pace of business. The division bench has also referred to a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Vaishali Sharma Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1529/2020 holding that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the scheme as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under central excise and service tax. It has been observed to the effect that before insisting on payment of excess amount or higher amount, the designated committee is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the declarants. 24. It could not be out of place to refer to a decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Kiran Borewells Vs. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Kar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
