Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 286 - HC - Service TaxWithdrawal of form SVLDRS-3 (exhibit-K) - direction to the respondents to refund the amount collected from the petitioner - whether petitioner's application (declaration) under the scheme should be construed as one under the 'pending litigation category' or under the 'arrears category'? - HELD THAT:- The appeal filed by the petitioner before the CESTAT against the order-in-original dated 18.09.2018 was pending as on 30.06.2019 and therefore, the application (declaration) of the petitioner should be treated as one under the ‘pending litigation category’ and not one under the ‘arrears category’. This is because in addition to the above discussion, to be eligible under the ‘arrears category’ in terms of section 121(c), no appeal should be filed by the declarant against the order-in-original before expiry of the limitation period for filing appeal or the order-in-appeal has attained finality or the declarant has admitted the tax liability but has not paid the same which is not the position in the present case as petitioner had filed appeal against the order-in-original before expiry of the limitation period. It was held in the case of Capgemini Technology Services India Limited [2019 (3) TMI 349 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Thought Blurb [2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], declaration of the petitioner filed under the scheme on 23.12.2019 has to be construed to be one under the ‘pending litigation category’. The matter is remanded back to the Designated Committee to take a fresh decision as to the consequential relief to be granted to the petitioner, including refund of the amount paid by the petitioner, treating the declaration of the petitioner as one under the ‘pending litigation category’ after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
|