9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion mentioned therein. One of the exclusion under Section 125(1)(e), which is relevant for our purpose, is where a person has been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved has not been quantified on or before 30 June 2019. The Ministry of Finance by its clarification dated 27 August 2019 in paragraph 10(g) clarified that the duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit quantified before 30 June 2019 would be eligible under the Scheme. In the instant case, admittedly in the course of the enquiry / investigation, the Petitioner has admitted its liability of Rs.1,39, 58,752/- and, therefore, the Petitioner is eligible for availing the benefit of the Scheme. Merely because a higher figure is mentioned in the application by way of abundant caution, the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Scheme moreso, when the object of the Scheme is to reduce the litigation. It is also important to note that the Petitioner is not seeking refund of any amount paid or payable on the basis of his declaration of Rs.1,50,37,871/-. Petitioner is justified in relying upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 June 2019. 5. On 16 October 2019, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner wherein the Petitioner's quantification of service tax liability for the period 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 admitted during the investigation was reproduced and the Petitioner was called upon to show cause why service tax amount of Rs.1,50,37,871/- for the period 2014 to 2017 alongwith interest and penalty should not be recovered. 6. The Petitioner made an application in Form SVLDRS-1 for availing the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme and in the said Form amount of Rs.1,50,37,871/- was mentioned as duty quantified. The said figure by way of abundant caution was taken from the show cause notice although lesser amount was admitted in investigation. Respondents issued Form SVLDRS-2 rejecting the application on the ground that the quantification of the amount is post 30 June 2019 and, therefore, the Petitioner is not eligible for availing the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme. It is on this backdrop that the present petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the rejection of its application under SVLDR Scheme. 7. Mr. Shreevastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the quantification has been admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts since the Petitioner has disclosed more than what was quantified during the course of the investigation. 11. Section 121 (r) of the Scheme defines quantified to mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. The said definition does not state that who is required to quantify. Therefore, even if an assessee admits in the course of investigation prior to 30 June 2019 and arrived at the quantification same would fall within the meaning of the term quantified as defined. In the instant case, admittedly in the course of the investigation, the Petitioner has quantified the service tax liability of Rs.1,39,58,752/-. The said quantification was also communicated to the Respondents prior to 30 June 2019. 12. Section 125 (1) (e) of the said Scheme which reads thus :- Section 125. (1) All persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this scheme except the following, namely:- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) who have been subjected to an enquiry or 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 30th day of June, 2019; 13. Section 125 of the said Scheme pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to June, 2017) would be around Rs.1.93 crores. While petitioner did not give the exact figure of total service tax dues, he nonetheless admitted such dues to be around Rs.1.93 crores which was subsequently enhanced in his statement dated 25.09.2019 to Rs.2,08,29,640.00. From a conjoint reading of section 121(r) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, circular of the Board dated 27.08.2019 and answers to question Nos. 3 and 45 of the Frequently Asked Questions, a view can legitimately be taken that the requirement under the scheme is admission of tax liability by the declarant during inquiry, investigation or audit report. It is not necessary that the figures on such admission should have mathematical precision or should be exactly the same as the subsequent quantification by the authorities in the form of show-cause notice etc. post 30.06.2019. The object of the Scheme is to encourage persons to go for settlement who had bonafidely declared outstanding tax dues prior to the cut off date of 30.06.2019. The fact that there could be discrepancy in the figure of tax dues admitted by the person concerned prior to 30.06.2019 and subsequently quantified by the departmental authorities would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
