9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e, on 30th June, 2019 because as on 30th June, 2019, there was an inquiry/investigation pending against petitioner. The amount of duty payable has been quantified on 25th June, 2019 when in the statement of Madhukar Poojari, Director of petitioner it was recorded. In the show cause notice also the total tax liability of the petitioner as on 5th April, 2018 has been quantified as Rs.144,80,183/-. The fact that in the show cause notice which was issued subsequently tax duties quantified by the Departmental Authorities was about Rs.19,348/- in excess would not be material at all to determine eligibility criteria in terms of the scheme. In a similar case which was relied upon by Mr. Shrivastava in the matter of SABAREESH PALLIKERE, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. FINBROS MARKETING VERSUS JURISDICTIONAL DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, THANE COMMISSIONERATE, DIVISION IV, RANGE-II ORS. [ 2021 (2) TMI 515 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that The object of the scheme is to encourage persons to go for settlement who had bonafidely declared outstanding tax dues prior to the cut off date of 30.06.2019. The fact that there could be discrepancy in the figure of tax dues admitted by the person concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and was engaged in providing services being Outdoor Catering Services and Cleaning Services under section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994. At the relevant time, petitioner was registered under Service Tax Rules, with the Central Excise Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act). With effect from 1st July, 2017, petitioner registered itself under Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act). 3. Petitioner received a summons dated 5th April, 2018 from Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) under section 174 of the CGST Act by which Director of petitioner was summoned to appear in person on 5th April, 2018 at 3.00 p.m and also tender evidence/documents mentioned therein because a case/inquiry about evasion of service tax was being conducted against petitioner. In pursuance of summons, petitioner s Director appeared before concerned officer and statement of Director was recorded. Petitioner also provided documents called for. 4. Subsequently, petitioner received a letter dated 5th February, 2019 from respondent No.2 summoning petitioner s Director to attend to record his statement and also to submit certain documents. Once again, statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner should appear for a personal hearing before designated committee on 31st December, 2019. Remark column of the said form also provided SCN issued on 16.10.2019 after 30.06.2019 . 8. Petitioner responded to the same by filing Form 2A on 25th December, 2019 stating that it agreed with estimated amount shown in SVLDRS Form 2A issued by respondent No.4. Strangely, respondent No.4 instead of accepting petitioner s Form-2-A, issued a letter dated 2nd February, 2020, which is impugned in this petition, rejecting the declaration. It will be useful to reproduce the said communication and the same is reproduced below. OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI EAST 9TH FLOOR, LOTUS INFO CENTRE, STATION ROAD, PAREL (EAST), MUMBAI 400012 TEL.022-24196302 Email: svldrs2019@[email protected] F.NO. CGST/ME/SVLDRS/App/294 206/Anjali/19-20 Mumbai dt. 02.2020 To, M/s. Anjali Services Pvt. Ltd. A-39, New Empire Industrial Estate, Kondivita Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 Ref: DIN No.20200267VM00006R5F82 Sub: Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 Application ARN No.LD1811190000290 dt. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scheme where the duty tax demand has been finally worked out on or before 30.06.2019. In other words, all the evidence/document gathering process is over and the tax liability has been worked out on or before 30.06.2019, For instance, a Draft Audit Report or the Final Audit Report has been issued on or before 30.06.2019. Similarly, a letter intimating duty demand has been issued by the department. These would include those cases also where the duty/tax demand undergoes a change only due to any clerical or calculation error. 4) On scrutiny of your case is it's become clear that SCN amount was higher than the amount quantified before 30.06.2019 indicating that quantification in the matter was not final by 30.06.2019. Also report of DGGI Mumbai case in both applications was same, hence appeared to be duplicate applications. 5) In view of the above both the SVLDRS-1 having ARNo.LD1811190000290 dt. 18/11/2019 LD2711190000921 dt. 27.11.2019 are hereby rejected. (KUNAL KASHYAP) Jt. Commnr (SVLDRS) (M.V.S. Choudary) Pr. Commnr (SVLDRS) (Designated Committee) In our view, respondent No.4 has erred in rejecting petitioner s declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing duty/tax demand or duty/tax liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report etc . (emphasis supplied) 12. Mr. Ochani strongly opposed the petition and reiterated the stand taken in the impugned communication. 13. When provisions of section 121 (r) read with clause (c) of section 123 read with section 124 of Finance Act, the Circular dated 12th December, 2019 and answer to FAQ 45 are considered, we can safely conclude that requirement under the scheme is admission of tax liability by the declarant during inquiry, investigation or audit. In the show cause notice dated 16th October, 2019, there is an admission from respondents that petitioner s Director in his statement dated 25th June, 2019 has admitted service tax liability amounting to Rs.144,60,835/- as payable on 5th April, 2018. Three things emerge from this: (a) There is an investigation/inquiry against the petitioner; (b) There is an admission by petitioner which means there is a written communication and; (c) Tax dues has been quantified at Rs.1,44,60,835/- before 30th June, 2019 in such written communication. 14. A show cause notice has been issued after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement dated 25.09.2019 to Rs.2,08,29,640.00. From a conjoint reading of section 121(r) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, circular of the Board dated 27.08.2019 and answers to question Nos. 3 and 45 of the Frequently Asked Questions, a view can legitimately be taken that the requirement under the scheme is admission of tax liability by the declarant during inquiry, investigation or audit report. 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 30.06.2019. The object of the scheme is to encourage persons to go for settlement who had bonafidely declared outstanding tax dues prior to the cut off date of 30.06.2019. The fact that there could be discrepancy in the figure of tax dues admitted by the person concerned prior to 30.06.2019 and subsequently quantified by the departmental authorities would not be material to determine eligibility in terms of the scheme under the category of inquiry, investigation or audit. What is relevant is admission of tax dues or duty liability by the declarant before the cut off date. Of cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
