9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e forthwith. The Respondents waive service. Taken up for disposal. 2. The Petitioner had applied under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, seeking benefit thereunder which has been denied to the Petitioner by the Respondents on the ground that investigation is pending against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this Petition. 3. The Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of the provision of supply of goods and services. The Petitioner is registered under the Finance Act, 1994. The Petitioner did not discharge the service tax liability for the Financial Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Though the Petitioner had paid the service tax for the year 2015-16, it was paid late, and that to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 and 2017-18 with remarks "Department has already initiated the investigations against the Applicant" and "The application is subsequent to Anti Evasion Visit at their premises. VD cannot be accepted". 8. Aggrieved by these rejections, the Petitioner is before us. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner falls in the category of case under Section 125(1)(f)(i) of Finance Act as on 30 June 2019, there was no enquiry/investigation pending against the Petitioner and at the most the same could be as initiated by way of notice dated 28 August 2019 by the Deputy Commissioner (Anti Evasion) CGST, Belapur. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that under Section 125(1)(f)(i) th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve held that, by adopting liberal interpretation, it will have to be held that the pendency of the investigation/enquiry on 30 June 2019 referred to Section 125 of the Act of 2019 is also relevant for the voluntary disclosure category under Section 125 (1)(f)(i) of the Act of 2019. The Division Bench in the case of UCC Infrastructure has followed the reasoning of the Division Bench in the case of New India Civil Erectors and has opined that there is no reason to take a different view. We have not been informed that the decisions in the case of New India Civil Erectors or UCC Infrastructure have been challenged by the Respondents. That being the position, though the Petitioner is entitled to succeed as there is no other ground except the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
