9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the return. A person who claims that he has not disclosed his true liability in the return and has not paid the amount can, therefore, file a declaration under section 107(1) of the Finance Act. Some emphasis has to be placed to the word true occurring before liability in the first proviso to section 106 of the Finance Act - In the present case, as noticed above, the appellant claimed that it had not disclosed the true liability in the service tax return earlier filed for the period April, 2012 to September, 2012 and it is for this reason that the true liability was disclosed in the declaration filed by the appellant under section 107(1) of the Finance Act. The conclusion drawn by the Commissioner in the impugned order that since the amount of Rs. 64,67,773/- disclosed in the return was included in the amount of Rs. 66,98,098/- declared by the appellant, the appellant would not be justified in including this amount of Rs. 64,67,773/- in the declaration is apparently not in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the Finance Act. If a true liability is disclosed subsequently by a person it is obvious that the amount earlier declared in the return would be incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period covered by the said return: Provided further that where a notice or an order of determination has been issued to a person in respect of any period on any issue, no declaration shall be made of 2. the 2013 scheme his tax dues on the same issue for any subsequent period. (2) Where a declaration has been made by a person against whom,- (a) an inquiry or investigation in respect of a service tax not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid has been initiated by way of- (i) search of premises under section 82 of the Chapter; or (ii) issuance of summons under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the Chapter under section 83 thereof; or (iii) requiring production of accounts, documents or other evidence under the Chapter or the rules made thereunder; or (b) an audit has been initiated, and such inquiry, investigation or audit is pending as on the 1st day of March, 2013, then the designated authority shall, by an order, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such declaration. 5. The term tax dues has been defined in section 105(e) of the Finance Act in the following manner: 105(e) tax dues means t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant under the 2013 Scheme on 19.12.2013 for the period October, 2011 to December, 2012, the amount was indicated as Rs. 1,05,31,854/-. It needs to be noted that for the period from April 2012 to September 2012, the tax payable was mentioned as Rs. 64,67,773/- but in the declaration, the tax payable was mentioned as Rs. 66,98,098/-. The breakup is as follows: Period under VCES Amount (Rs.) Oct-11 to Mar-12 04,86,111 Apr-12 to Sep-12 66,98,098 Oct-12 to Dec-12 34,70,645 Total 1,05,31,384 10. It is not in dispute that the declaration was acknowledged by the Department on December 24, 2013 for an amount of Rs. 1,05,031,854/-. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had deposited the amount under the 2013 Scheme in the following manner: Period Amount (Rs.) Till 31-12-2013 52,65,926 Till 30-06-2014 52,65,928 Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal and the relevant observations are as follows: The Appellants in the instant case filed a returns for period ended June-12 and Sep-12 with liabilities amounting to Rs. 64,67,773/- and the declaration VCES- 1 has already included this amount. Thus the appellant has declared his true liability of tax in his ST-3 returns filed for the period of June-12 and Sep-12 which debars the Appellant from benefit of VCES scheme. I find that the Appellant has already disclosed his true liability of Service tax in the ST- 3 returns to the tune of Rs. 64,67,773/-. Thus he has not fulfilled the conditions of Section 106 of the Act ibid, therefore the amount so declared in ST-3 return does not come under in the ambit of VCES scheme. Ones the return has been filed under Section 70 ibid, the provision relating to recovery of confirmed dues shall apply and therefore in the impugned order, VCES-1 dt 19.12.2013 has been rightly rejected by the adjudicating authority. The Order of High Court and other case Laws referred by the Appellant does not help them due to clear violation of said provision as discussed above. 8. In view of above discussions the Appeal filed by the Appellant is dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rue was not there, then of course the contention advanced by learned authorized representative appearing for the department would have been accepted as it would be a case of disclosure of the liability. The legislature has consciously used the word true before liability to enable such a person who had filed the service tax returns disclosing the liability and had not paid the service tax to file a declaration if such a person believed that the liability disclosed in the return was not the true liability. In the present case, as noticed above, the appellant claimed that it had not disclosed the true liability in the service tax return earlier filed for the period April, 2012 to September, 2012 and it is for this reason that the true liability was disclosed in the declaration filed by the appellant under section 107(1) of the Finance Act. 17. The conclusion drawn by the Commissioner in the impugned order that since the amount of Rs. 64,67,773/- disclosed in the return was included in the amount of Rs. 66,98,098/- declared by the appellant, the appellant would not be justified in including this amount of Rs. 64,67,773/- in the declaration is apparently not in accordance with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
