Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 479 - HC - Service TaxSabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - brokerage / commission services - declaration accepted but according to petitioner, respondents have not given credit to certain amounts which, according to petitioner, has been paid - HELD THAT:- One thing is very clear that it is the intention of Union of India also to put an end to a litigation where the declarant wants to put an end to. Any person can be a declarant except those excluded under Section 125 of the Finance Act. In our view, having considered the various provisions of the scheme alongwith circulars issued by respondent no.2, one thing that is certain is any amount paid either in cash or by virtue of input credit should be reduced at the time of determination of the final amount payable under the scheme. As held by this court in M/S. CODE ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. ABIRAAJ RAJAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2021 (2) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the crucial word is “verify” used in Section 126(1) of the Finance Act and Sub Rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules. The obligation of respondent no.3 is to verify the truth or truthfulness of the declaration made by petitioner. In our view, that would also include verification of petitioner’s statement in the declaration that it has paid Rs.8,73,19,575/- including Rs.5,37,25,305/- by reversal of credit in service tax returns filed for the period April 2015 to September 2015. Mr. Mundra, as stated earlier, submitted that petitioner had given proof and details to respondent no.3 during the personal hearing. If that was the case, respondent no.3 ought to have verified the truthfulness of petitioner’s statement whether the amount of Rs.5,37,25,305/- by reversal of credit in service tax returns was correct. By verifying this truthfulness would not, amount to disposing or hearing the appeal filed by petitioner on merits. Respondent no.3 should not take such pedantic approach and should keep in mind the purpose behind introducing the scheme, i.e., liquidation of past disputes so that the business can move ahead and the tax administration can also focus on the smooth implementation of the goods and services tax. Respondent no.3 is directed to consider all documents and records submitted by petitioner including proof of payment of Rs.5,37,25,305/- alongwith records available with the department and issue a fresh statement under Section 127 of the Finance Act - Petition disposed off.
|