9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the voluntarily category - the declaration was filed in time as is evident from a reading of Rule 3 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019. However, as per Section 125(1)(e), a person who has been subjected to an enquiry of investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30 th day of June 2019, shall not be entitled to file a declaration under the scheme. The petitioner however failed to pay even the amount specified in Form SVLDRS-3 in time. The petitioner appears to have made belated attempt to pay the amount on 16.3.2020. This was long after the period specified in Form SVLDRS-3 had expired. The amount which was initially debited from the petitioners account was however later recredited back. Thereafter, the petitioner did not take steps to make the payment. Meanwhile, lockdown was imposed due to outbreak of COVID 19 pandemic. Demand alongwith interest and penalty upheld - there is no merits in the present writ petition - petition dismissed. - W.P.(MD).No.720 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD).No.568 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2022 - MR. C.SARAVANAN, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on 31.12.2019, which was the last date as per the scheme, which was later extended to 15.01.2020. After the petitioner filed an application in SVLDRS-1 on 31.12.2019, the 1st respondent also issued Form SVLDRS-3 on 13.01.2020 by directing the petitioner to pay the amount within 30 days, which would have expired on 12.02.2020. 6. The petitioner however, made an attempt to make the payment on 16.03.2020 assuming the last date as 28.02.2020 as per the Challans generated in the ICE Gate of the respondents. After the amounts were paid by the petitioner on 12.02.2020, these amounts were re-credited into the petitioner's account and on 19.03.2020 a sum of Rs.1,83,873/- was re-credited on the same day and the other two amounts of Rs.1,61,273/- and 1,79,915/- were re-credited on 19.03.2020. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner had sufficient balance in the account to pay the amount and the payment was rejected on account of technical glitch. It is submitted that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has also subsequently extended the time for payment of the amount to 30.06.2020 due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. 8. The learned counsel for the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts has placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No.541 of 2021 (M/S. Yashi Construction Vs. Union of India and another) dated 11.08.2021 as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2070 of 2022, vide order dated 18.02.2022. 14. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no discussion in the order passed by the Allahabad High Court on account of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been confined to the facts peculiar to the aforesaid case alone. In any event, this is a fit case for resolving the dispute and therefore, the benefit of the scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner. 15. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 16. The point for consideration in this Writ Petition are as follows: (a) Whether the petitioner has made a declaration in SVLDRS-1 in time under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 and the rules made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; (f) a person making a voluntary disclosure,- (i) after being subjected to any enquiry or investigation or audit; or (ii) having filed a return under the indirect tax enactment, wherein he has indicated an amount of duty as payable, but has not paid it; (g) who have filed an application in the Settlement Commission for settlement of a case; (h) persons seeking to make declarations with respect to excisable goods set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. (2) A declaration under sub-section (1)shall be made in such electronic form as may be prescribed. 126. (1) The designated committee shall verify the correctness of the declaration made by the declarant under section 125 in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such verification shall be made in case where a voluntary disclosure of an amount of duty has been made by the declarant. (2) The composition and functioning of the designated committee shall be such as may be prescribed. 18. A further reading of Section 129(1)(c), makes it clear that in case of voluntary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice which is pending as on the 30th day of June, 2019, and if the amount of duty is,- (i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent. of the tax dues; (ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; (b) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice for late fee or penalty only, and the amount of duty in the said notice has been paid or is nil, then, the entire amount of late fee or penalty; (c) where the tax dues are relatable to an amount in arrears and,- (i) the amount of duty is, rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. of the tax dues; (ii) the amount of duty is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues; (iii) in a return under the indirect tax enactment, wherein the declarant has indicated an amount of duty as payable but not paid it and the duty amount indicated is,- (A) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. of the tax dues; (B) amount indicated is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues; (d) where the tax dues are linked to an enquiry, investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) no matter and time period covered by such declaration shall be reopened in any other proceeding under the indirect tax enactment. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) no person being a party in appeal, application, revision or reference shall contend that the central excise officer has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by issuing the discharge certificate under this scheme; (b) the issue of the discharge certificate with respect to a matter for a time period shall not preclude the issue of a show cause notice,- (i) for the same matter for a subsequent time period; or (ii) for a different matter for the same time period; (c) in a case of voluntary disclosure where any material particular furnished in the declaration is subsequently found to be false, within a period of one year of issue of the discharge certificate, it shall be presumed as if the declaration was never made and proceedings under the applicable indirect tax enactment shall be instituted. 23. That apart, as per Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules, a declarant was required to pay the amount within 30 days of the date of issue of Form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at appropriate rate under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 from the service provider Shri.Shanmugam Kandasamy on the payment of Service Tax confirmed at Sl.No.(i) above; iii. I impose penalty of Rs.28,88,010/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand and Ten only) under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; Further, in terms of second proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, if the service tax and interest, determined at S.Nos. (i) and (ii) above, are paid within a period of thirty days of the date of receipt of this order, then the penalty payable shall be 25% of the service tax so determined/confirmed under Sl.No.(i) above, provided such reduced penalty amount is also paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. iv. I confirm the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) being the late fee recovering from the service provider under Section 70 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7(C) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 for non-filing of ST3 returns for the period from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018 (upto June 2017); v. I impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) under Section 77(2) of Finance Act, 1994; and vi. I do not impose pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
