9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal No. 48/2016 -2017 ST-II dated 14.10.2016, in respect of the second mentioned show cause notice covering the period between April 2008 and March 2010 - The amount that was paid prior to passing of the Order-in-Original No. 48/2016 for a sum of Rs. 99,94,773/- was eligible for being set off against the tax liability of the respondent under the Scheme for the period under dispute covered by the 2nd demand in Show Cause Notice as confirmed by the Order in Original No. 48/2016 dated 14.10.2016 as there was an excess amount of Rs. 15,18,561/- (Rs. 99,94,773/- 84,76,212/-) paid by the petitioner against demand comprised in Order-in-Original No. 48/2016 dated 14.10.2016. Though, the aforesaid sum of Rs. 15,18,561/- cannot be refunded back, it can be adjusted towards the amount payable under the scheme for the demand confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 48/2016 dated 14.10.2016 for the period mentioned in the second mentioned show cause notice which is the subject matter of the present dispute - The balance amount of Rs. 15,80,561/- (Rs. 99,94,773 Rs.84,76,212) is to be allowed for adjustment towards the amount determined in SVLDRS III dated 06.12.2019. The balance amount of Rs. 15,80, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the direction to R2 to dispose the petitioners appeal was issued in the presence of the panel counsel for R1and paragraph 7 of my order is specific to the effect that the petitioner shall be heard. If at all the Revenue was of the view that they should also be heard, the panel counsel could well have sought inclusion of the same since the orders were dictated in his presence in open Court. Not having done so, the plea of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be taken now. This ground is misconceived and stands rejected. 9. On merits, clearly, there is an overlap between the period covered under SCN1 and SCN2, the former covering the period December 2008 to January 2010 and the latter the period April 2008 to March 2010. The periods December 2008 to January 2010 are thus common under both SCNs. 10. The revenue agrees in counter that the demand of Rs. 19,15,941/- is duplicated. Hence, according to them, the demand under OinO2 stands reduced to Rs.10,00,775/-of which 30%, as per the Scheme, is a sum of Rs.3,00,232.50. Then they say that the amount duplicated needs to be reduced from the original demand and cannot be used as pre-deposit for the present demand as it has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Tax Dues Tax Relief Pre-Deposit/any other Deposit of Estimated Amount Payable From Period To Period Name Amount Duty Name Amount 1 Litigation 1 14.10.16 14.10.16 Works Contract Service - 00440410 29,61,716.00 20,41,701.20 Works Contract Service 00440410 8,75,014.80 Grand Total 29,61,716.00 20,41,701.20 8,75,014.80 14. The point of dispute revolves around the remittance or otherwise of the amount of Rs. 19,15,491/-. In the light of the detailed discussions in the paragraphs above, there being no dispute on the position that the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted the aforesaid amount and the demand under SCN2/OinO2 is a duel demand, the computation of the petitioner is accepted and the impugned order set aside. 15. The Dispute Resolution Scheme is an attempt to close legacy tax disputes and a certain amount of fairness should be seen in the interpretation of the provisions of the Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondent would harp on the argument that a dispute raised under one SCN cannot be settled by utilising a deposit made under a different SCN. This argument does not arise in a case such as the present, since the two SCNs relate to identical transactions, time periods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the authority under Finance Act, 1994. 9. The respondent therefore filed W.P. No. 3167/2017 challenging the said Communication dated 21.12.2016 bearing reference No. C.IV/2/10/2016 (STA-II). Vide order dated 09.02.2017 in W.P. No. 3167/2017, the said Communication dated 21.12.2016 bearing reference No. C.IV/2/10/2016 (STA-II) was quashed and the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding duplication of demands set out under a representation dated 16.12.2016 and pass orders within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of the Courts order. 10. The appeal was thereafter resubmitted by the respondent on 27.02.2017 vide Appeal No. IV/2/10/2016(STA-II). 11. It is during this period, the Sabkha Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 came to be announced vide the Finance Act No.2 with effect from 21.08.2019. The respondent wanted to settle the dispute under Sabkha Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 as against the demand confirmed vide Order in Original No. 5 of 2013 dated 30.01.2013 and Order in Original No. 48 of 2016-2017-II dated 14.10.2016. It is in this background, the respondent had fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second mentioned Order-in-Original No. 48 of 2016-2017-II dated 14.10.2016, confirming the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice No. 9/14/2012-STC/ADJ. 19. Since the appellant directed the respondent to pay Rs. 8,75,015/-, Form SVLDRS-3 dated 06.12.2019 was subject matter of a challenge in W.P. No. 477 of 2020 by the respondent, pursuant to which, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 20. When the matter came up for admission before the Writ Court in W.P. No. 477 of 2020, vide order dated 09.01.2020, the Court suo motu impleaded the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II) as R2 and reiterated the direction to him to consider and dispose the representation dated 16.12.2016 of the respondent herein as already ordered by this Court on 09.02.2017 in W.P.No.3167 of 2017. The respondent had, in the representation aforesaid, specifically averred that a dual demand of service tax had been raised for the period December 2008 to January 2010 under two separate Show Cause Notices 21. In compliance with the order dated 09.01.2020 in W.P. No. 477 of 2020, the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeal) No. 001/2020 (CTA-II) vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d prior to passing of the Order-in-Original No. 48/2016 for a sum of Rs. 99,94,773/- was eligible for being set off against the tax liability of the respondent under the Scheme for the period under dispute covered by the 2nd demand in Show Cause Notice as confirmed by the Order in Original No. 48/2016 dated 14.10.2016 as there was an excess amount of Rs. 15,18,561/- (Rs. 99,94,773/- 84,76,212/-) paid by the petitioner against demand comprised in Order-in-Original No. 48/2016 dated 14.10.2016. 26. As per Section 124 (2) of the Sabkha Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019, any amount paid under pre-deposit at any stage of Appellate proceedings under the Indirect tax enactment or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit, shall be deducted when issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant. 27. Proviso to Section 124(1) of the Sabkha Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 reads as under :- (1) Subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), the relief available to a declarant under this Scheme shall be calculated as follows : (a) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
