9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Nagpur-I. 3. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as under : (i) The petitioner, a proprietary concern, is engaged in the business of providing/supplying of manpower and security-related services to its clients and is operating from Chandrapur. (ii) The petitioner is registered bearing Service Tax Registration No. AGZPB3228JST001. (iii) On the service provided by the petitioner, the petitioner is required to pay the service tax, as prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994. Such payment of service tax was due for the Financial Year 2014-15 to 2017-18, which he has failed to deposit for want of receipts from his clients. (iv) Vide notice dated May 14, 2018, the respondent No. 2-The Designated Committee of SVLDRS summoned the petitioner so as to have an enquiry under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, alleging evasion of the service tax. The petitioner was accordingly directed to appear on May 21, 2018 in the office of the respondent. (v) Vide another communication dated May 10, 2019, the Superintendent, Central Goods and Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure-C, and also the show cause notice dated June 25, 2020 issued by the respondent No. 3, produced at Annexure-10, it is the contention of Shri Sawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the respondents have failed to interpret the provisions of Section 123 (c) of the Finance Act, 2019, which state that "if the 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" making it eligible to make a declaration under the Scheme. Further, he would urge that the Government of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, vide Circular No. 267/78/2019/CX-8-Pt.III dated August 27, 2019 clarified the word 'quantified' as defined under Section 2 (r) of the Finance Act, 2019 as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. It was clarified that such written communication will include a letter intimating duty demand; or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit; or audit report, etc. He would claim that owing to the communication dated June 19, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents have confirmed that the tax liability was neither quantified nor they have agreed to any quantification done by the petitioner-firm, on or before June 30, 2019. Further, he would submit that the reliance placed by the petitioner-firm upon Paragraph 10 (g) of the Circular dated August 27, 2019 is misconceived as the clarification allows the tax payers to file a declaration under three conditions and the petitioner-firm does not satisfy any of the conditions. There is neither any written communication by the Department intimating about the duty liability nor there is any audit report. He would also urge that the object behind the Scheme is to provide one-time settlement of arrears of dues. It is an alternative mechanism to curtail the dispute, and so as to claim the benefit under the Scheme, the terms and conditions have to be duly fulfilled by the petitioner-firm. So as to substantiate the above contention, he would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Charaka Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd., reported in 2003(11) SCC 689, which states that if a benefit is sought under a Scheme, the party must fully comply with the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. It is clarified that such written communication will include a letter intimating duty demand; or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit; or audit report etc. ..." 22.3. Clause (g) of paragraph 10 makes it abundantly clear that cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand had been quantified on or before 30.06.2019 would be eligible under the scheme. The word "quantified" has been defined under the scheme as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. In such circumstances, Board clarified that such written communication would include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc. 23. Reverting back to the facts of the present case we find that there is clear admission/acknowledgment by the petitioner about the service tax liability. The acknowledgment is dated 27.06.2019 i.e., before 30.06.2019 both in the form of letter by the petitioner as well as statement of its Director, Shri. Sanjay R. Shirke. In fact, on a pointed query by the Senior Intelligence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h India P. Ltd., which are worth referring, reads thus : "13. In Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-1813-HC-MUM-ST, this court faced with a similar issue referred to the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and to the circular dated 27th August, 2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (briefly "the Board" hereinafter) whereafter it was held as under:- "47. Reverting back to the circular dated 27th August, 2019 of the Board, it is seen that certain clarifications were issued on various issues in the context of the scheme and the rules made thereunder. As per paragraph 10 (g) of the said circular, the following issue was clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2019 and the Rules made thereunder:- Cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 are eligible under the scheme. Section 2 (r) defines "quantified" as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. It is clarified that such written communication will include a letter intimating duty demand; or duty liability admitted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which we are submitting our working." The said communication is duly acknowledged by the respondents. 12. If we consider the aforesaid communication in the wake of the provisions of Section 121 of Chapter V, which provides for SVLDRS, 2019, the petitioner's case, in our opinion, is very much qualified to have the benefit, particularly having regard to the definition of 'quantified' under clause (r) thereunder and also Section 123, which provides for tax dues. 13. The petitioner, in our opinion, was eligible to make a declaration under the aforesaid Scheme as on June 19, 2019. The petitioner has admitted the liability to pay the service tax in the communication dated June 19, 2019, which was duly acknowledged by the respondents. 14. The impugned communications issued to the petitioner, which are questioned in this petition, are contrary to the very object, which has been clarified by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in its Circular dated August 27, 2019, particularly clause (g), which reads thus : "(g) Cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand has been quantified on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
