9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the simple reason that on 28.05.2019, a search was conducted in the premises of the appellant, pursuant to which, the appellant submitted a letter dated 13.06.2019 admitting such investigation and produced certain documents in continuance of the same. When such being the case, the appeal is hit by the provisions of Clause 121 (r) and 125 (1) (e) of the Scheme, thereby making himself ineligible to invoke section 127 (2) of the scheme. Thus, it is evident that for availing the benefits of the scheme, one of the conditions precedent is that the tax liability of the tax payer ought to have been quantified. Even though the appellant had submitted a letter dated 13.06.2019, much before the date of closure of the scheme, the fact remains that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to Form SVLDRS-1 bearing ARN No.LD1401200001786 dated 14.01.2020 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the entry made therein for rejecting the declaration made by him on the grounds of ineligibility, as illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the first respondent to consider and accept the declaration filed by him against the Audit Qualification of admitted duty to the tune of ₹ 32,08,952/- as per the provisions of the Act and the circulars issued by the department under the scheme. 3. The appellant is a cine actor, who has taken up character rolls in South Indian films. He is also engaged in providing commercial and product services and receives consideration fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in force until 30.06.2020, however, the writ petition was filed on 08.09.2020, after the period specified under the scheme expired. Therefore, the learned Judge, dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. 5. Ms. Jayalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge ought not to have summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by merely stating that the scheme was not in force on the date of filing of the writ petition. She would further submit that the order rejecting the application submitted under the scheme was passed on 14.01.2020, however, it was communicated to the petitioner only on 04.03.2020. The learned Judge also failed to take note of the fact that the pandemic situa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alaji Publicity Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2021 (10) TMI 435 , in which it was held as follows; 20. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraphs makes it clear that the 'Scheme' is a beneficent one and aim and object of the Scheme is to unload the baggage of pending litigation relating to service tax and excise duty. While interpreting a beneficent provision, its aim and object cannot be ignored.' 21. Considering the aforesaid in Thought Blurb (supra), it was held that it will be completely illogical and contrary to the object of the 'Scheme' to reject an application on the ground of ineligibility without giving an opportunity to the declarant to explain as to why his declaration should not be accepted and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 11. On appreciation of the factual matrix of the case, this court finds that there are no merits in this writ appeal for the simple reason that on 28.05.2019, a search was conducted in the premises of the appellant, pursuant to which, the appellant submitted a letter dated 13.06.2019 admitting such investigation and produced certain documents in continuance of the same. When such being the case, the appeal is hit by the provisions of Clause 121 (r) and 125 (1) (e) of the Scheme, thereby making himself ineligible to invoke section 127 (2) of the scheme. The relevant clauses contained un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ergoing investigation relating to the non-payment of service tax, the documents, as mentioned below is submitted herewith for quantification of service tax liability. 13. Thus, the letter dated 13.06.2019 would clearly indicate that the appellant furnished certain documents only for quantification of the service tax liability and there is no whisper that he intended to avail the benefits of the scheme. Secondly, the letter also indicates that as on 13.06.2019, the service tax liability of the appellant has not been quantified, which is one of the pre-conditions to avail the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the appellant by the first respondent herein is proper. 14. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
