9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended on behalf of the respondents that tax dues quantified by the petitioner in its communication cannot be considered as quantified tax dues for the purposes of the Scheme because the investigations continued till the issuance of the show cause notice dated 09.08.2019. According to the respondents, the tax dues could be considered as quantified only on completion of the investigation and on the concerned officer, issuing the show cause notice or any communication quantifying the amount due - The contentions advanced by the respondent are not merited. Tax dues as quantified in any communication emanating from the the tax payer, would qualify as tax dues if there is no dispute regarding the same. The Scheme also covers cases where investigations, enquiries and audit are pending. The Scheme was introduced by the enactment of the Finance Act No. 2 of 2019. Chapter V of the Act (Sections 120 to 135) provided the statutory framework for the Scheme. Section 122 of the Act specified various enactments, which were covered under the Scheme. There are two components of the Scheme. One is dispute resolution and one is amnesty. The dispute resolution component is intended to put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndpal, Mr. Snehil Sharma, Mr. Abdullah Tanveer, Mr. Ashok Thakur, Ms. Anjali Jain, Ms. Jagrati Rastogi, Ms. Kannopriya Gupta, Advs. For the Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, Standing Counsel with Mr. Mayank Srivastava, Adv. for respondents. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: a. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature thereof, to quash the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019; b. And issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature thereof to direct the Respondents to accept the application filed by the Petitioner and issue a discharge certificate in favor of Petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019; 2. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the decision of the Designated Committee (respondent no. 3) to reject its application dated 27.08.2019 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porate office. 8. On 14.03.2019, summons were issued to the petitioner s Warehouse Manager for the Delhi Warehouse (one Shri Atul Shukla) under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereafter CEA ). His statement was recorded on the same date. 9. He had stated that the petitioner was engaged in the purchase and sale of Ayurveda products. The main activity of the petitioner company was purchase of items like soaps, oil, shampoo from various manufacturers. He had stated that the petitioner sends packing material to most manufacturers and they, in turn, supply the manufactured items in a complete packed form. However, one of the vendors M/s Aryaman Soap Industry supplied soaps in an unpacked form. He stated that after receipt of the said goods, the petitioner undertakes the process of packaging and labelling/ re-labelling. 10. The respondents also questioned him on the nature of the business transaction with M/s Aryaman Soap Industry and whether the petitioner undertook any manufacturing activity in respect of the goods (soaps) received from M/s Aryaman Soap Industry. Mr Atul Shukla stated that the petitioner was engaged in trading of goods and the petitioner was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow submitting the details of the invoices of the clearances for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 (upto June 2017). The year wise break-up of the clearances are as detailed below: S. No Year Assessable Value (Rs.) 1 2014-15 2107279 255239 2 2015-16 9203060 1150382 3 2016-17 11783045 1472880 4 2017-18 2392694 299086 Total 3177589 Question No. 5: Who are your other vendors, do you undertake similar activity of packing or re-packing or labelling in respect of those vendors? Answer : The other vendors are M/s. Quantum International Private Ltd, M/s. Oil Craft, M/s. Cultivator Natural Products, M/s. Oushadi, M/s. Kamala Perfumers, M/s. Merville Trust, M/s. Maroma, M/s. Azafran Organics etc. we receive shampoos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1,472,880.72 15% 537,164.01 1095 6 2017-18 2,392,694.22 12.50% 299,086.78 - - 299,086.78 15% 81,283.21 730 Total 28,643,505.26 3,556,480.14 11,499.85 5,749.92 3,573,729.91 1,828,653.61 Grand Total 5,402,383.53 13. The petitioner claims that its representatives met the officers of DGGI (respondent no. 4) on 29.05.2019 and had sought approval of their calculation sheet. It also claims that the concerned officers accepted the said calculation and had also suggested that the petitioner deposit a 15% penalty. The petitioner claims that it did so on 30.05.2019 with a view to close the case in terms of Section 11AC(d) of the CEA. 14. Thereafter, on 04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anand Srinivasan Subject: Re: Request for closure of Investigation proceedings initiated by your goodself in the matter of M/s Kama Ayurveda Private Limited, New Delhi. Attachments: Letter To DGGSTI Office.pdf; 15) Excise Tax_30-05-19_ARYAMAN Sales Interest Penalty.pdf; 12) Excise_05-05-09_ARYAMAN Sales Excise duty 2014-2017.pdf; 14) Excise Tax_24-05-19_ARYAMAN Sales Excise duty Interest.pdf Dear Sir, This is with reference to the discussion with team Kama Ayurveda please find attached letter w.r.t. the request for closure of investigation by your goods self in the matter of Kama Ayurveda Private Limited (Delhi Warehouse). I have also attached the payment challans for the payment of duty, interest and penalty. The payment summary is attached as below Amount Paid Challan No. Nature Challan Date 35,73,730.00 137 Basic Excise Duty aryaman 05-04-2019 10,00,000.00 00162 Interest on Basic Excise Duty aryaman 24-05- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,204 2 2014-15 (01.03.2015 to 31.03.2015) 4,73,101 12.5% 59,138 - - 59,138 3 2015-16 92,03,061 12.5% 11,50,382 - - 11,50,382 4 2016-17 1,17,83,046 12.5% 14,72,881 - - 14,72,881 5 2017-18 (upto June 17) 23,92,694 12.5% 2,99,087 - - 2,99,087 Total 2,80,68,769 34,87,512 10,120 5,060 35,02,692 17. The show cause notice also recorded that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited central excise duty of ₹35,73,730/- along with the applicable rate of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. However, in the show cause notice, a three-month period, which was prior to five years from the date of the show cause notice, has not been considered, apparently, for the reason that it was beyond limitation. The petitioner in its calculation had included the said amount as well. 19. This Court had also called upon the respondents to produce the original files, which also indicate that at no stage, the quantification of the tax dues submitted by the petitioner was challenged, doubted or disputed. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondents had accepted the quantification of the excise duty as disclosed by the petitioner and had proceeded on that basis. 20. As noticed above, the petitioner had, in fact, deposited the tax dues but the respondents did not accept the same solely on the ground that it was deposited under the assessee s code relating to the petitioner s Coimbatore unit. 21. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that tax dues quantified by the petitioner in its communication cannot be considered as quantified tax dues for the purposes of the Scheme because the investigations continued till the issuance of the show cause notice dated 09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as under: 123. For the purposes of the Scheme, tax dues means xx xx xx (c) where an enquiry or investigation or audit is pending against the declarant, the amount of duty payable under any of the indirect tax enactment which has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019. 28. The expression quantified is defined in Section 121(r) of the Act, which reads as under: 121. In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires, *** *** *** (r) quantified , with its cognate expression, means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment; 29. The controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the recent decision of this Court in Hans Uttam Finance Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate Ors.: 2023:DHC:3454-DB. In the said case, this Court had examined various provisions of Chapter V of the Act and the legislative scheme, and had held as under: 31. It is obvious that Clause (c) of Section 123 of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 covers cases where the matter had not reached the final determinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person during enquiry, investigation or audit; or audit report etc. 31. Thus, the contention that the tax dues would be quantified only on culmination of investigation and issuance of show cause notice, is unmerited. It runs contrary to the provisions of Section 123(c) of the Act as well as the Circular issued by CBIC dated 27.08.2019. 32. In the present case, there is no controversy as to the amount of central excise payable in respect of goods cleared from the Delhi Warehouse. The petitioner had admitted its liability in the initial stages and had voluntarily disclosed the same in its communications. The respondents have proceeded and accepted the quantification. However, the respondents had not accepted payments in discharge of the liability on the ground that the same had been filed under their code pertaining to the petitioner s place of business in Coimbatore. 33. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned decision of the Designated Committee rejecting the petitioner s declaration on the ground that tax dues are not quantified, is rejected. 34. There is no dispute that the petitioner had paid the amount of tax, which is required under the Schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
