9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied as payable by the designated authority. The disagreement has been the main contention of appellant s argument, same stands totally unproved. Otherwise also, it being a case of voluntary disclosure, the appellant had to self assesse the payable amount in SVLDRS-1. The self declaration form has also not been produced by the appellant. Rejection of refund in terms of Section 124(2) and 130 of Finance Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Since the tax liability for the period in question is actually either 70% or 50% higher than the amount estimated as payable under the scheme, any deposit prior payment of such estimated amount is made nonrefundable. In case of voluntary disclosure also it is an uncalculated amount as per tax payers choice which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.32,03,701/- for the period of April, 2014 to March, 2017. Pursuant thereto, the SVLDRS-4 dated 02.03.2020 towards full and final settlement of the tax dues under SVLDRS was issued in favour of the appellant. The aforesaid amount of Rs.6,59,022/- was paid by appellant vide three separate challans dated 16.12.2019 and 23.12.2019 and 23.12.2019 and as such was over and above the amount of Rs.32.03,701/-. 1.2 Accordingly, the refund claim in question was filed. The department observed that the appellant had requested for the reduction of the amount of Rs.6,59,022/- from the declared value of taxable services but the designated committee after considering the relevant material, under Section 125 of Finance Act of 2019 read with Circular No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excess payment and was liable to refund the same. Resultantly, the order of rejection of refund is not sustainable. 3.1 Learned Counsel further submitted that the provisions invoked by the adjudicating authority to deny the refund are not applicable to the circumstances of the present case, for the reason that the amount is not covered under the proviso to Section 124 (2) of SVLDRS Act. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court, Delhi in the case of B-Earth and Spire India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported as 2022-TIOL - 965-HC-DEL-ST, wherein it has been held that total amount of duty as mentioned in clause (d) of Section 123 of the 2019 Act, could only mean the outstanding duty which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To provide an opportunity of voluntary disclosure to noncompliant tax payers. 7. The benefits as available under the scheme are observed as follows: (i) It provides total waiver of interest and penalty. (ii) Provides for immunity from prosecution. (iii) Relief of 70% from the duty demand in the pending cases if it is Rs. 50 Lakhs or less and 50% relief, if the amount in the matter pending under adjudication is more than Rs.50 Lakhs, (iv) The same relief was available for the cases under investigation and audit where the duty involved was quantified on or before 30.06.2019. (v) In case of an amount in arrears, the relief offered is 60% of the confirmed duty amount if the same is Rs.50 Lakhs or less and it is 40% in other c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... litigation or investigation/audit or voluntary disclosure. While filing that form, online, the applicant has to select the appropriate category along with the amount payable by him. After the said declaration is filed, the designated authority generates SVLDRS-1 reflecting the amount payable by the applicant/declarant. As per the scheme, if the tax payer does not agree with the amount estimated by the designated authority, he may challenge the same and the designated authority will issue an SVLDRS Form No.2, asking for the reasons for disagreement. 11. As already observed above, opportunity of personal hearing in case of disagreement is mandatory. The designated authority has to issue a notice notifying the date of personal hearing. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter the tax liability was estimated at Rs.32,03,701/-. In the circumstances, the contention of the appellant is not at all acceptable. 13. Coming to the ground that the refund has been rejected in terms of Section 124(2) and 130 of Finance Act, 2019. The appellant though has submitted that amount in question/the amount of pre-deposit does not exceed the amount payable by the declarant, hence, proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 124 is wrongly been invoked by the adjudicating authorities. But it is observed that the amount payable by the declarant/appellant as indicated in the statement issued by the designated committee is Rs.32,03,701/-. The said amount stands paid by the appellant. Resultantly, the amount of Rs.6,59,022/- is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
