Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2020 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 43 - HC - Service TaxDuplication of demand by issuing two show cause notices (SCN) for the same period - Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - remission of differential service tax - short payment of tax - periods December 2008 to January 2010 - whether there was a duplication of demand in the two SCNs dated 12.10.2011 and 09.02.2012? - HELD THAT:- 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 - revenue agrees in counter that the demand of ₹ 19,15,941/- is duplicated. Hence, according to them, the demand under OinO2 stands reduced to ₹ 10,00,775/-of which 30%, as per the Scheme, is a sum of ₹ 3,00,232.50. There is an excess of a sum of ₹ 15,18,561/- in regard to OinO1 that, by applicationof Section 130(2) shall neither be refunded nor utilised towards any other demand. This argument is also misconceived. The petitioner, as confirmed by the order of R2, is right about the double demands raised for Periods 1 and 2. Thus, as far as the demand of ₹ 19,18,375/- is concerned, it ought not to have been raised at all - The remaining demand of ₹ 9,98,350/- corresponding to Period 2 also stands covered/telescoped by the amount of ₹ 80,74,333/- already paid for the same period earlier. In stating this, I have taken note of the position that the total taxable value of the two projects under both SCN 1 and 2 is identical. The point of dispute revolves around the remittance or otherwise of the amount of ₹ 19,15,491/-. In the light of the detailed discussions, 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. 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 demands and constitute a duplication of proceedings. Petition allowed.
|