9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no explanation with regard to the appropriation or receipt of amounts under challans. In such a case, while there is a report on record stating that going by the challans, the total amount paid by the petitioner towards service tax was ₹ 2,73,00,045/- comprising the amount of ₹ 32,12,000/-, the matter will have to be properly verified at the end of the respondents which would be necessary and pertinent. The authorities are not expected to go-about hyper-technically and/or unmindful of claims of assessees based on material while determining the estimated amount of payment in the matter. Respondent No. 2 is directed to re-consider the petitioner s SVLDRS1 and after verifying the claim of ₹ 32,12,000/- having been paid towards the service tax referred to in the show cause notice issue revised SVLDRS-3 - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO.944 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2021 - SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. Ms. Manasi Patil i/b Cen-Ex Services, Advocate, for Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Ruju R. Thakker, for Respondents. (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) 1. Rule. Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the benefit of the scheme subject to condition that they would apply under the category arrears and pay 60% of the disputed tax dues with an undertaking that the order would not be challenged further. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in view of aforesaid circular, Petitioner had opted for the Sabka Vishwas dispute resolution scheme (SVLDRS) and had filed necessary declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 showing tax arrears of ₹ 3,78,88,322/- and pre-deposit of duty as ₹ 2,73,00,045/- and tax dues (after tax relief) were shown as ₹ 63,52,966.20/-, with the pre-deposit comprising the amount of ₹ 32,12,000/- paid by the Petitioner from time to time in the proceedings after show cause notice. The Petitioner had communicated to the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai that they have opted for settlement under SVLDRS scheme under the category arrears against the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner and that they would not file any proceedings against said order. 9. The Designated Committee, however, issued under Section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 Form SVLDRS-2 on 22.02.2020 showing estimated amount payable at ₹ 82,80,167/in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id factual position, deposit of ₹ 32,12,000/- having been made after the show cause notice and before adjudication and the aforesaid circular, the same has been ignored by the adjudicating authority - the Commissioner, as well as the Designated Committee, and has not received its due ending up erroneously double tax liability is being foisted compelling the Petitioner to twice pay the tax arrears to the tune of ₹ 32,12,000/-. The impugned Form SVLDRS-3 is arbitrary and discriminatory and is untenable. Ms Patil, learned counsel, therefore, urges to allow the Petition and quash and set aside the Form SVLDRS-3 and to direct the authorities to re-consider the declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 after taking into consideration and adjusting deposit of ₹ 32,12,000/- and issue a fresh statement of tax payable in Form SVLDRS-3. 14. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the adjudication authority has considered that the Petitioner has not submitted any evidence / working of service tax liability establishing payment of service tax for the relevant period and in the absence of the evidence, it is not possible to correlate the payment made during the financial year to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amount. 17. It has further been referred to paragraph 10.5 of the affidavit-in-reply with reference to the claim of the Petitioner about deposit aggregating to ₹ 32,12,000/- on various dates towards demanded service tax in the show cause notice, copy of letter dated 14.05.2019 to the jurisdictional superintendent had not been received in the jurisdictional office i. e. Division-VII but in another Division-IV, Sales Tax-II and as such, the same is not being available with the respondent No. 3 s office. 18. From the aforesaid, the position appears to be that the payment of ₹ 32,12,000/- during the proceedings after show cause notice from time to time has not been denied at all nor is there any allegation that the challans are non-existent or forged. It is claimed by the petitioner that challans in respect of payment aggregating to ₹ 32,12,000/- were produced before the adjudicating authority and the same had also been communicated to the designated authority and further that the department is wary of that and the office of respondent No. 3 had submitted a verification report dated 20.02.2020 stating the factual position as per challans submitted by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
