9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as 'the SVLDR Scheme') for voluntary disclosure was floated by the respondents. The petitioner claims to have opted for the said Scheme and submitted an application dated 30.12.2019 and along therewith, he also deposited the due service tax to the tune of Rs.10,74,702/- by way of voluntary disclosure. The said application of the petitioner under Section 129(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 2019 has been rejected vide order dated 12.10.2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner, CGST and Excise Duty Commissionerate, Jodhpur which is assailed in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel Shri Gajendra Panwar representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to apply under the SVLDR Scheme and he filed the timely applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India & Ors. (Writ Petitin No.574/2022) decided on 31.01.2022: "11. This Court in case of M/s. New India Civil Erectors Private Limited (supra) has considered identical facts and after adverting to various provisions of the said Scheme including Section 123(d), 124(1) (e), 125(1), 127(1)(f)(i) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v/s. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 346 held that if any enquiry or investigation or audit was initiated on or before 30th June, 2019, such a person would not be eligible to make declaration under the voluntary disclosure category. Logical corollary to this would be that an enquiry or investigation or audit post 30th June, 2019 would not act as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e' category and thereafter to grant the admissible relief to the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing. 13. The principles laid down by this Court in case of M/s. New India Civil Erectors Private Limited (supra) would apply to the facts of this case. We do not propose to take any different view in this matter. 14. In the facts of this case also the respondents had issued a summons only on 30th August, 2019 i.e. after 30th June, 2019 and thus summons issued after the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019 could not be the ground for declaring the application filed by the petitioner under SVLRDS-1 ineligible. In our view, the stand taken by the respondents is contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Court in case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
