Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 990 - HC - Service TaxRejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is submitted that the quantification was communicated to the petitioner for the first time only on September 4, 2019, which is after the cut-off date - whether the e-mail dated March 22, 2018, further correspondence of the respondents vide communication dated April 4, 2018, letter dated September 4, 2018 and the e-mail dated October 31, 2018 is an ‘intimation’ or ‘written communication’ for quantification to be eligible for the benefit of the Scheme? HELD THAT:- There is nothing reflected from the communications to indicate that duty demand was quantified. There are force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the correspondence/mails referred to by the petitioner prior to the cut-off date are meant only to obtain additional required information by the audit officers during the course of the audit and cannot be termed as ‘quantification’ of the duty. There is nothing on record to indicate that quantification of duty was done prior to June 30, 2019. The demand of the duty quantified/finalised by the Audit Raigad was only under letter dated August 29, 2019. The respondents categorically denied that the said e-mails are intimation as regards the tax amount having been quantified finally. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that as the petitioner did not provide any further documentary evidence, a letter dated September 4, 2018 was issued to the petitioner for providing necessary clarification. No doubt it is only on the basis of the communications placed on record and the impugned letter that its action is to be justified by the respondents - there are substance in the contention of the respondents that the final quantification in terms of the scheme was done only on August 29, 2019 and not prior to the cut-off date viz. June 30, 2019. In the present facts, it is found that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate and/or there is nothing on record to indicate that the duty liability is admitted by the petitioner. On the contrary, though the amount is quantified by the letter dated August 29, 2019, the petitioner goes ahead and addresses the e-mail dated November 16, 2019 stating that the matter in respect of reversal of credit of ₹ 75 lakhs is under process and that the petitioner will revert back to the respondents shortly. Further, it is mentioned in the said e-mail that the petitioner attached the details of the credit taken within time and the details of credit taken more than 365 days, meaning thereby that even as late as on November 16, 2019, much after the cut-off date, the petitioner still does not admit its liability to pay the duty. In view of the decision in SHRI SIDDHI KUMAR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS [2021 (2) TMI 982 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], we are of the considered view that even on this count, there being no admission of the petitioner as to its liability of duty payable prior to the cut-off date of June 30, 2019, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Petition dismissed.
|