9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, impugned orders dated 18th August 2021 and 31st March 2022 are also quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appeal filed by petitioner before the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) being Appeal No.86611 of 2022 filed on 4th July 2022 also stands disposed. Petition disposed off. - K.R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner in person present : Mr. Muthukrishnan Iyyappan. For the Respondents : Ms. Bhakti Date i/b. Ms. Maya Majumdar. Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Amicus Curiae. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) : 1. Director of petitioner one Muthukrishnan Iyyappan appeared as party in person. Therefore, we requested Mr. Raichandani to be the Amicus Curiae. Before we proceed with the case, we must express our appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth by Mr. Raichandani, learned Amicus Curiae, for it has been of immense value in rendering the judgment. 2. On or about 5th April 2019 petitioner received an email from GST audit team stating that there was a service tax paid and payable mismatch for Financial Years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 and directed petitioner to produce documents for the said period. Petitioner was also requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es please provide the copy of full Balance Sheet, P L A/c., ITR - filed ST-3, and other relevant documents within a week time . Petitioner received an email dated 5th August 2019 from respondents calling upon petitioner to pay the short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 22,00,414/- together with interest and penalty. 7. Mr. Raichandani, relying upon a judgment of this Court in Thought Blurb v/s. Union of India and Ors. 2020-TIOL-1813-HC-MUM-ST and Joseph Daniel Massey v/s. Union of India and Ors. 2021-TIOL-217-HC-MUM-ST submitted that the fact that petitioner had quantified the amount payable before the cut off date of 30th June 2019 read with the email dated 5th August 2019, the Court should hold that petitioner s tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June 2019. 8. Ms. Date opposed the petition and submitted, relying on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Chaque Jour HR Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India 2020 (9) TMI 9 (Delhi), that petitioner s unilateral letter will not amount to quantification of the tax liability. Ms. Date also relied upon a judgment of this Court in JSW Steel Limited v/s. Union of India and Ors. 2021 (10) TMI 990 (Bom.). 9. Both the judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc. This has been also explained in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) prepared by the department on 24th December, 2019. 49. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that on the one hand there is a letter of respondent No.3 to the petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 at Rs. 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of Rs. 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner's tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52. We have one more reason to take such a view. As has rightly been declared by the Hon'ble Finance Minister and what is clearly deducible from the statement of object and reasons, the scheme is a one time measure for liquidation of past disputes of central exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be in the form of a speaking order with due intimation to the petitioner. 10. In Joseph Daniel Massey (Supra) also it was petitioner who had addressed a communication specifically mentioning the service tax amount due and in the declaration also mentioned the same amount as duty payable and since petitioner s letter was dated 22nd May 2018, the Court gave a finding that petitioner had admitted liability before the cut off date of 30th June 2019. Paragraph 19 of Joseph Daniel Massey (Supra) reads as under : 19. In so far the present case is concerned, it is evident that petitioner in his letter dated 22nd May, 2018 addressed to respondent No.3 had specifically mentioned that the service tax amount due to be paid by the petitioner was Rs. 40,95,110.00. In his declaration in terms of the scheme he mentioned the duty payable as Rs. 40,91,524.00 which amount corresponds to the quantification arrived at by respondent No.4 post 30th June, 2019 at Rs. 40,91,524.00. When petitioner had admitted duty liability of a slightly higher figure much before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019, it would be too technical and narrow an approach to reject the declaration of the petitioner on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
