9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice Tax Appeal No. 76005/2015 dated 26th August, 2024. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-- i. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of VCES admittedly having been made payment of entire principal tax dues of Rs. 51,22,900/- after 1st March, 2013 being the permitted time frame under the scheme as settled in several judgements including in case of Sadguru Construction Co.-Vs-UOI reported in 2014 (36) STR 3 (Guj.), Apna Awas Construction Vs. Chief Commissioner of Customs reported in 2019 (26) G.S.T.L 289 (Pat.), Dr. Yeshwant Dhume Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax Panaji reported in 2019 (369) E.L.T. 181 (Bom.) and Premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in rejecting the assessee's declaration filed under the scheme on 23rd July, 2013, by a communication dated 25th July, 2014 on the ground that certain sums of money were deposited by the assessee prior to coming into force of the scheme. The adjudicating authority while considering the submission made by the assessee opined that the sums of money paid by the assessee prior to 10th May, 2013 when the scheme was introduced cannot be reckoned as payment under the scheme and, therefore, the declaration was deficient and cannot be considered. With this reasoning the assessing officer did not adjudicate the show-cause notice but proceeded to confirm the demand made in the show-cause notice alleging short payment of service tax and also app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been modified and revised by the Board but in fact reiterated by the Board while contesting matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which could be seen from the decision in the case of Deputy Commissioner Vs. Barnala Builders and Property Consultant, (2016) 44 STR J69 (SC) and page 70 of the stay petition and Deputy Commissioner Vs. Barnala Builders and Property Consultants 2015) 38 STR J424 (SC). Therefore, the respondent department is stopped from taking a stand that the order of rejection passed by the designated authority under Section 106 (2) is an appealable order. In any event, the adjudicating authority held that the declaration filed by the assessee under the scheme was not maintainable on account of non-compliance of the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se are more or less identical. In the said case, the assessee had deposited the amount of tax after 1st March, 2013, which was fixed as the cut-off date under the scheme. But this deposit was made prior to 10th May, 2013 when the scheme was modified. The department contended before the Court that such payment cannot form part of the declaration of the scheme. 8. This argument made by the department was rejected by taking note of the statutory provisions contained in the scheme of 2013 and more particularly, the definition of the term "tax dues" as defined in Section 105 (1) (e) of the Act. Under the said provision "tax dues" means service tax due or payable under the chapter or any other amount due or payable under Section 73A thereof, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
