9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finition of quantified under clause (r) thereunder and also Section 123, which provides for tax dues. The petitioner 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 - the stand taken by the respondents so as to claim that the petitioner was not eligible in terms of Section 123 of the Finance Act, 2019 cannot be accepted in view of the admission of liability already communicated. The impugned communication dated February 11, 2020 issued to the petitioner, produced at Annexure-7, thereby rejecting the online application of the petitioner and consequently the impugned show cause notice dated June 25, 2020, produced at Annexure-10, are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Conclusion - The word quantified under the scheme would mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit. Matter reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax and Central Excise, Chandrapur informed the petitioner about the requirement to deposit an amount of Rs.64,27,679/-. (vi) In response to the summons dated May 14, 2018, vide letter dated June 19, 2019, the petitioner informed the respondents that the tax returns submitted during the month of September 2018 for the Financial Year 2015-16 (second half) and 2016-17 were incorrect and incomplete. The petitioner further informed that the actual liability is much more than the amount mentioned in the said returns. The service tax of Rs.97,54,079/-, which was charged from the clients, was not received, but the same was due, and as such admitted the liability for payment of tax of Rs.97,54,079/-. (vii) With effect from July 01, 2017, the Goods and Service Tax was introduced and for settlement of long-standing legal disputes under the old enactment, the aforesaid Scheme of 2019, i.e. SVLDRS, came to be introduced. (viii) Section 123 of the Finance Act, 2019 defines tax dues and clause (c) thereof provides that where an 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm has admitted its liability, viz. Rs.97,54,079/-, for which written communication was served on the respondents before June 30, 2019, in view of the clarification dated August 27, 2019, the petitioner-firm is eligible under Section 123 (c) of the Finance Act, 2019 for the benefit under the Scheme. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate above contentions would invite the attention of this Court to the judgments of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Saksham Facility Services Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3591; Suyog Telematics Limited Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5997; Sabareesh Pallikere Vs. Jurisdictional Designated Committee, Thane Commissionerate, Division IV, Range II and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 174; Jai Sai Ram Mech Tech India P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 221; K.N. Rai Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 15, and Unify Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others [Writ Petition No.115 of 2021, Decided on November 10, 2022]. 7. Shri Bhattad, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quirements of the Scheme are not met, then on principles of equity, Courts cannot extend the benefit of that Scheme. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents seeks dismissal of the petition. 8. We have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. The short question involved in this petition is whether the duty liability of the petitioner-firm was quantified on or before June 30, 2019 during the enquiry or investigation undergone by it so as to make it eligible under the Scheme. 10. The legal position as flows from the various judgments is required to be appreciated. In the matter of Saksham Facility Services Private Limited, cited supra, the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar issue, in Paragraphs 22, 23 and 26, has observed thus : 22. In the circular dated 27.08.2019 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, Board had issued instructions clarifying certain issues pertaining to the scheme. Clause (a) of paragraph 4 is relevant and is extracted hereunder:- 4. The relief extended under this Scheme is summed up, as follows: (a) For all the cases pending in adjudication or appeal (at any forum), the relief is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability of Rs. 2,47,32,456.00, the Director in his statement had clearly admitted and accepted the said amount as the service tax liability for the period from 2015-16 upto June, 2017 with further clarification that an amount of Rs. 1,20,60,000.00 was already paid. 26. Following the above it is evident that the word quantified under the scheme would mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report and not necessarily the amount crystalized following adjudication. Thus, petitioner was eligible to file the declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit as its service tax dues stood quantified before 30.06.2019. Similarly, an identical issue was considered in the matter of Suyog Telematics Limited, cited supra, in Paragraphs 16 and 17, which read thus : 16. From the above, it is evident that all that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of section 121 (r) will include a letter intimating duty 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. 50. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. 15. In the aforesaid background, we are of the view that the stand taken by the respondents so as to claim that the petitioner was not eligible in terms of Section 123 of the Finance Act, 2019 cannot be accepted in view of the admission of liability already communicated. 16. In the wake of the above findings, we are of the view that the impugned communication dated February 11, 2020 issued to the petitioner, produced at Annexure-7, thereby rejecting the online application of the petitioner and consequently the impugned show cause notice dated June 25, 2020, produced at Annexure-10, are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. We remand the matter back to the respondent No. 2-The Designated Committee of SVLDRS to consider the declaration of the petitioner dated December 05, 2019 in the wake of admission given by the petitioner in his communication dated June 19, 2019 afresh as a valid declaration in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
