9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement dated 24.12.2019 issued by the Designated Committee i.e., respondent no.3, in the prescribed form i.e., SVLDRS-3, and the order dated 23.01.2020, whereby the petitioner's rectification application preferred under Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 [in short "2019 Act"] was rejected by respondent no.4. 2. Notice in the above-captioned writ petition, after hearing counsel for the parties for some time, was issued, via order dated 11.05.2022. On the said date, the following essentials concerning the dispute obtaining between the parties were captured by the Court: "1. Mr V. Lakshmikumaran, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn our attention to the Order-in-Original dated 20.04.2015, whereby the following is noted q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the petitioner has paid in cash towards the tax demand, Rs.6,39,36,641/-. 3. Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [hereafter referred to as "Scheme"], the petitioner gets a rebate of 50% of the tax demand, which, according to Mr Kumaran, was pegged at, as noticed above, Rs.16,61,78,084/- and after accounting for rebate would be scaled down to Rs 8,30,89,042/-. 3.1 Therefore, Mr Kumaran says that, if against Rs. 8,30,89,042/-, Rs.6,39,36,641/- is set off, as this amount is already paid, the petitioner, rightly, paid towards tax the balance amount i.e., Rs.1,91,52,401/-. 5. It is Mr Kumaran submission that the insistence of the respondents/revenue that the petitioner should have paid Rs.5,95,38,784/-, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to the petitioner, the total demand raised for the period in issue, as noticed on 11.05.2022, was Rs. 16,61,78,084/-. Against this amount, it is submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to a rebate of 50% under the scheme i.e., Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [in short "Scheme"], which would peg the amount payable at Rs.8,30,89,042/-. 5.1. The petitioner contends that Rs. 6,39,36,641/- having been paid, it should be called upon to pay towards tax, under the extant scheme, the remaining amount equivalent to Rs.1,91,52,401/-. 6. On the other hand, the respondents/revenue contend that the petitioner ought to have paid Rs. 5,95,38,784/-, as was indicated by the petitioner while seeking to avail of the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. 7.2. Besides this, Mr Lakshmikumaran also submits that the fact that the outstanding demand towards service tax for the period in issue, was rightly pegged at Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, is discernible from a bare perusal of additional directions contained in the order-in-original, concerning interest and penalty. 7.3. It is Mr Lakshmikumaran's say, that a close perusal of the same would show that both interest and penalty was sought to be recovered only on the demand amount i.e., Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, and not on the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 8,07,72,766/-, which, as indicated above, was disallowed by invoking Rule 14 of the 2004 Rules. 8. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that Mr Lakshmikumaran is right; the reason being, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1994, inasmuch as the noticee had failed to discharge their Service Tax liability to the exchequer by suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. (e) I do not impose any Penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 as penalty is already imposed under Section 78 ibid. The penalty shall be reduced to 25% provided the duty demanded along with interest and 25% of the penalty is paid within 30 days of receipt of this order." 8.2. A careful perusal of the directions would show that the demand, as is contended by Mr Lakshmikumaran, is pegged at Rs. 16,61,78,084/-. This is evident on a bare perusal of clause (a) of the operative directions. 8.3. Insofar as clause (b) is concerned, it simply says that CENVAT cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute is, as indicated above, that the demand cannot be limited to Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, as the amount which was disallowed by way of CENVAT credit i.e., Rs. 8,07,72,766/-, had to be added to the same. 9.5. Besides this, in the alternative, Mr Hossain says that the said amount (i.e., Rs. 8,07,72,766/-), in any event, was recoverable under Rule 14 of the 2004 Rules. 9.6. We have queried Mr Hossain, if that was the case, why were no recovery proceedings commenced, even though the order-in-original was passed as far back as on 20.04.2015. 9.7. In fairness, Mr Hossain has submitted, that he has no immediate answer to the query raised by the Bench. From this, it can only be concluded that the understanding of the authority which passed the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
