9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 and Sections 70 and 174 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 with a direction to remain present in-person and to tender evidence/ produce documents. On 25th March 2019, the statement of one of the Directors was recorded when he admitted service tax liability of Rs. 72.37 lakhs for the period October 2015 to June 2017. The Central Government thereafter introduced Subka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme in Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 (for short "the said SVLDR Scheme) for settling old cases of service tax and central excise. 4. On 1st November 2019, the petitioner filed the SVLDRS-1 declaration declaring tax dues of 72.37 lakhs as admitted by their Director under the "inquiry/investigation/audit" category. On 11th November 2019, the petitioner informed the office of the DGGI that they had already opted for SVLDRS based on the tax liability admitted by their Director before the DGGI Officer. On 23rd December 2019, the Designated Committee issued a Form SVLDRS-2 based on SVLDRS-1 declaration made by the petitioner. On 30th December 2019, the Designated Committee afforded personal hearing to the petitioner when they once again agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner while making a statement was quantified at Rs. 72,37,208/-, however, with remark "it is observed that the duty has not been quantified before 30th June 2019 and further investigation is under progress. Please explain." He submitted that the petitioner was granted personal hearing and thereafter was issued Form SVLDRS-2A. The petitioner was asked to confirm whether the petitioner agreed with the Estimate in SVLDRS-2. The petitioner answered the said question in affirmative as on 12th February 2020. He submits that the amount of tax dues admitted by the Director of the petitioner was admitted all throughout and not disputed by the respondents even after granting personal hearing. It is submitted that only for the first time, a show cause notice was issued by the respondents subsequently demanding higher amount. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the definition of 'tax dues' under Section 123(c), definition of 'quantified' under Section 121(r) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and would submit that the petitioner had already admitted the tax dues and had satisfied the definitions of 'tax dues' and 'quantified' within the meaning of section 123(c) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 is Rs. 72.37 lakhs and GST liability for the period July 2018 to February 2019 is Rs. 80.48 lakhs. At present, we are facing a financial crunch and trying to arrange the fund and undertake to pay the service tax as well as GST liability at the earliest along with interest at applicable rates." 13. The said statement was made by the Director of the petitioner under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and Sections 70 & 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner through its Director deposed that the said statement was a true and correct statement. 14. The petitioner thereafter, filed SVLDRS-1 declaration declaring tax dues of 72.37 lakhs as admitted in the statement made by the Director. The said statement was filed on 1st November 2019. The petitioner once again admitted the service tax liability of Rs. 72.37 lakhs. He informed that the petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. In Form SVLDRS-2 dated 23rd December 2019, the amount of tax dues were quantified at Rs. 72,37,208/- however with remark "it is observed that the duty has not been quantified before 30th June 2019 and furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the higher amount of tax dues in Form SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-2A. 19. In our view, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Central Excise Circulars and Trade Notices issued by the respondents referred to aforesaid would support the case of the petitioner. This Court in case of Nabeel Construction Pvt. Ltd.(supra) after considering identical facts and after adverting to a catena of decisions of this Court dealing with identical issues and after construing various provisions of the said Scheme, has held that what is relevant under the scheme is an admission of tax dues or duty liability by the declarant before the cut off date which need not be of the exact figure upon determination by the authorities post 30th June, 2019. It is held that under the said scheme, quantification need not be on completion of investigation by issuing show cause notice or the amount that could be determined upon adjudication. 20. This Court held that it is not necessary that the figures on such admission should have Mathematical precision or should be exactly the same as the subsequent quantification by the authorities in the form of show cause notice etc. post 30th June, 2019. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
