|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 31546 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1226
Seeking rectification of mistake in the order - interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - calculation of the pre-deposit amount required to be made by the appellant before filing an appeal - HELD THAT:- The total demand for both the show cause notices during the respective period in dispute was calculated at Rs. 8,29,53,025/- (as mentioned in above table) instead of Rs. 13,66,31,566/- as has been insisted by the applicant. The appellant had paid the service tax of Rs. 5,36,78,541/- during the disputed period after availing benefits of certain notifications. Since the eligibility of appellant qua those notifications was objected by the department, the amount in dispute was the amount as was not paid by the appellant towards the total amount of consideration received during the disputed period. The order-in-original dated 05.01.2024 while adjudicating both the show cause notices, had confirmed the proposed demand of Rs. 8,29,53,025/-. This observation has been appreciated in para 7 of this order, that the show cause notices had proposed the amount of tax as was short paid during the relevant period.
In the show cause notice dated 7.3.2008 the amount in dispute/the amount of short paid service tax which was proposed to be recovered for the period from 2005 to March 2007 is Rs. 4,28,08,029/-. Similarly for the second show cause notice dated 28.11.2008 the amount in dispute/proposed for the period April 2007 to March 2008 was Rs. 4,01,44,996/-. The amount which was paid as service tax at the time of self assessment is not the amount of legal disagreement. It is the amount which was found short paid i.e. Rs. 8,29,53,025/- (of both the SCNs) which is the amount in dispute. This perusal makes it clear that the amount in dispute 10% whereof (pre-deposit) is to be deposited while filing an appeal before this Tribunal is Rs. 8,29,53,025/- Rs. 45 lakhs have been paid by the appellant after being pointed out towards the alleged short payment of service tax, hence it is this amount only can be adjusted in the amount of pre-deposit.
Conclusion - It is clearly apparent from the above calculation that Rs. 45 lakhs, the amount considered towards pre-deposit is still short of 10% of Rs. 8,29,53,025/-. In view of these observations, and holding that para 7 and 8 are in very much conformity with the entire above discussion arrived at for the better clarification, it becomes clear that there is no error at all in the impugned order dated 27.9.2024.
The application seeking rectification of mistake in the order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Defect Diary No. 50810 of 2024 dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal remains defective.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1225
Input stage refund of various services provided for export of goods under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29th June, 2012 - rejection of refund on the ground that the services had not been used beyond factory, vide Order-In-Original dated 23rd October, 2017. Against the Order-in-Original, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner - HELD THAT:- The Learned Commissioner has erred in passing the impugned order and the impugned order is not sustainable.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant is agreed upon that in the Order-In-Original, it has not been mentioned by the Adjudicating Authority that the applicant / appellant has not produced the copy of the invoice. If at all, the appellant has not produced the copy of the invoice before the Adjudicating Authority; then this fact must have been mentioned in the Order-In-Original. Further, it is also agreed with the Learned Counsel for the appellant that no refund application can be processed, if copy of the invoice has not been submitted, and a refund application without a copy of the invoice will be returned to the applicant outrightly. Here, it has not happened. The learned commissioner could have called for the copy of the invoice from the learned Adjudicating Authority or the appellant himself, but it was not done. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Conclusion - In the facts of the case, it appears proper, if the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner with the direction to give opportunity to the appellant to submit a copy of the said invoice and thereafter pass a suitable order on the refund application due to non appraisal of required facts.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1135
Time limitation of filing appeal - appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation - power of Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal to condone delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 leaves no room of doubt that though an appeal should be presented within two months from the date of receipt of decision or order of the adjudicating authority, in case it is filed beyond the said period of time, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), in a given case, where he is satisfied regarding existence of sufficient cause preventing the appellant from presenting the appeal within time, may allow its presentation within a further extended period of one month. It means that though power to condone delay is very much there under the proviso itself, the same cannot go beyond the extended period of one month; that is to say that total 60+30=90 days period is available for filing appeal. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the same was filed after a period of more than two years.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT], has clearly laid down that statutory scheme under the Act excludes applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Though sub-section (5) of Section 35-B of the Act, 1944 does not specify a particular period for which delay in filing appeal can be condoned, apparently, Section 35-B is applicable in respect of appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunal and not before the Commissioner. In the instant case, since the appeal filed before the Tribunal was well within time, the provision has no application. For this reason, the other argument from the appellant's counsel that Tribunals in other States are condoning delay in filing appeals, is thoroughly misconceived and irrelevant for the instant case.
Conclusion - The dismissal of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld, as barred by limitation and the Tribunal's order upholding the same affirmed. The appeal before the Tribunal was held to be within time, thus no question of condonation arose.
There are no error in orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. Consequently, the present appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1134
Levy of service tax - conversion charges paid by the respondent to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) for change of land use from industrial to commercial - refund of service tax paid on such conversion charges under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994 - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- It is found that the refund claim has been allowed as it has been held that no service tax is leviable on conversion charges paid to RIICO for change of land use from industrial to commercial and hence the same was refundable in terms of Section 104(2) of the Act.
From the reading of Section 104(1), it is apparent that it starts with a non-obstante clause, “Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 66, as it stood prior to the 1st day of July, 2012 or in Section 66B” and then provides that no service tax is leviable on one time upfront amount in nature of premium, Salaami, cost, price, development charge, or any other amount by whatever name called for part of cost of industrial plot, in respect of taxable service provided or agreed to be provided by a state government, industrial development, corporation, or undertaking or industrial units by way of grant of long-term lease of 30 years or more of industrial plots during the period commencing from 1st day of June, 2007 and ending with the 21st day of September, 2016. Further, Clause (2) provides that refund shall be made of all such service tax which has been collected but would not have been so collected if sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times. In terms of the said provisions, there is no iota of doubt that the conversion charges were towards the change in the nature of the land use for which RIICO has merely granted an approval and it cannot be linked to providing any activity resulting in performing of service. Hence, no service tax can be levied on these conversion charges and since the respondent has already paid the service tax in respect thereof they are entitled to seek refund of it.
The last date for filing the refund claim falls on 30.09.2017 whereas the respondent had already filed the refund claim on 15.05.2015 i.e. before the insertion of Section 104 and well before the cut-off date. In view of the statutory provisions of Section 104, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that the respondent is eligible to claim refund both on the ground of merit as well as on limitation and there are no error in the same.
Reliance has been placed on the decision in RIICO Ltd. versus CCE, Jaipur – I [2017 (5) TMI 673 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where the Tribunal has held that lumpsum payments received from the allottees of plots in industrial area by RIICO for grant of long-term lease of 30 years or more is not liable to service tax in view of Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The respondent has submitted the certificate dated 31.10.2017 issued by the Chartered Accountant certifying that the said amount of Rs.1,50,44,629/- paid to RIICO has not been passed on to any other person. Further, as per the books of accounts of the company, the said amount has been shown as recoverable from the Government. In the balance sheet for the financial year 2013–14 and 2016–17, the said amount has been shown as “Service Tax Refundable” in the Note No.1.09 as “Loans and Advances”. On that basis, it was concluded that the incidence of service tax has not been passed on to any other person and consequently, the refund is admissible to the respondent.
The controversy of eligibility to claim refund stands allowed in terms of the statutory provisions and the Department has not been able to justify as to why the relief is not admissible under the provisions of Section 104 of the Act.
Conclusion - i) Service tax is not leviable on one-time upfront conversion charges for change of land use from industrial to commercial paid to State Government industrial development corporations for long-term leases exceeding 30 years within the specified period. ii) Refund claims under Section 104 must be filed within six months from the Finance Bill 2017's presidential assent, but claims filed earlier are valid. iii) Refund is admissible only if the claimant has borne the incidence of service tax and has not passed it on to others.
There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence the same is affirmed. The appeal filed by the Revenue is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1133
Liability of appellant to pay service tax for the period 2014-15 on the consideration received for providing manpower services - failure to file service tax returns and non-appearance before the adjudicating authority - ex-parte adjudication - HELD THAT:- From the impugned order, it is found that the appellant had produced the copy of the challans as evidence to support that he has already paid the service tax in discharge of his liability for the year 2014-15. The Appellate Authority taking note of the same had concluded that the service tax liability of the appellant was Rs.18,07,429/- as against Rs.37,90,922/-. However, while examining the challans, the Appellate Authority found that the two challans were the subject matter of the appeal No.177/ST/2022 for the period 2013-14 and the appellant had inadvertently shown these challans for the period 2014-15. There is no error in ignoring the two challans which were towards the service tax liability for the previous year. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly re-determined the service tax liability of the appellant.
Since there was delay in payment of service tax, the levy of interest is automatic and the same is therefore, recoverable from the appellant. According to the Revenue, the appellant has misrepresented the two challans which were actually used in payment of service tax for the previous period, i.e., 2013–14, and therefore, the extended period has been rightly invoked. The penalty under Section 78(1) of the Act has been rightly imposed and the Appellate Authority has consciously reduced the same to the reduced amount of service tax liability. Lastly, the penalty imposed under Section 77(1)(a)and section 77(2) on the ground that though the appellant had already obtained the service tax registration from the Department, however, did not properly assess and pay the service tax. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
Conclusion - i) Service tax liability must be determined based on actual receipts and payments attributed to the correct financial year. ii) Misrepresentation or incorrect attribution of payments justifies invocation of extended limitation period and imposition of penalties. iii) Interest on delayed payment of service tax is automatic and recoverable. iv) Non-appearance and failure to respond to notices permits ex parte adjudication by the Tribunal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1132
Liability to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 for the period from 16.06.2009 to 13.03.2012 on the services rendered as a contractor providing construction-related labour services to builders and developer - entitlement for abatement or exemption from service tax on the basis that the contract was a labour rate contract without supply of materials - HELD THAT:- The appellant did not appear for any of the personal hearings before the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) either. The appellant did not appear before the Tribunal as well. Vide the daily order dated 11.10.2024, the appellant was warned that the case would be decided on merits if the appellant or his representative did not appear. Hence, when the case was called out on 02.04.2025, no one appeared for hearing.
The department had examined the agreement between the appellant and M/s Manav Builders and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had not provided material along with the labour service. This is substantiated by the Nil VAT returns filed by the appellant. Consequently, the appellant was not eligible to any abatement from the gross amount received for the services rendered by them. Once again, we note that no evidence has been produced before us in support of the appellant’s contention.
As regards the ground taken before the Tribunal that they did not receive the relied upon documents along with the show cause notice, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that the copies of the statements of Sh Jitendra Panwar and Sh Magraj Panwar, which were RuDs was submitted by the appellant along with the appeal. The other RuDs were copies of the VAT returns, Service Tax deposit challan and Bank statements submitted by the appellant himself to the department. Hence, this plea cannot be accepted.
Conclusion - i) The appellant was engaged in providing taxable construction-related labour services and was liable to pay service tax on the gross amount received without any abatement as no material was supplied. ii) The demand of service tax of Rs. 31,19,937/- along with interest and penalties under Sections 73, 75, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is justified and sustainable.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1131
Non-payment of service tax - amounts received by the appellant, comprising professional fees and reimbursable expenses - pure agent services - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] held that “the value of taxable service has to be the gross amount charged for the service provided and cannot include reimbursement expenses unless specifically stated.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down Rule 5(1) stating that it was ultra vires Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1130
Eligibility for exemption under Sr. No. 21(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 26th June, 2012, as amended - transportation of specified goods by road/GTA services - failure to produce the documents for the verification of principle of the fact whether they are covered by unjust enrichment.
Eligibility for exemption under Sr. No. 21(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 26th June, 2012, as amended - transportation of specified goods by road/GTA services - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order dated 17th August, 2016 the Commissioner has clearly held that all edible items stated in Show Cause Notice that qualified for food stuff and transported by appellant are entitled for exemption under Sr. no. 21 of the Notification no. 25/2012 dated 20th June, 2012 as amended, for period covered under show cause notice. No appeal has been filed by the department against the above mentioned findings. Therefore, it has become final. It is pertinent to mention here that the finding of the Commissioner that exemption under Sr. No. 21 (d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 26th June, 2012 as amended must be interpreted in such a way so as to hold that edible items stated in the show cause notice qualified for foodstuff which were transported by appellant during the period covered under the show cause notice and they are entitled for exemption under Sr. No. 21 of the Notification No. 25/2012 dated 28th June, 2012 as amended. The finding of the learned Commissioner in this regard is liable to be upheld.
Failure to produce the documents for the verification of principle of the fact whether they are covered by unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- It was the duty of the appellant to have filed supporting documents in favour of his application for refund. The excuse given by the appellant does not appear to be convincing that the record is bulky, because as per Section 11B (1), refund application made to Assistant Commissioner shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty has been paid. However, the argument of the appellant is that they had produced the sample copies of invoice / bilties to substantiate their claim and in addition thereto the appellant had requested the adjudicating authority to direct any concerned officer to inspect the said documents because, the record with regard to the whole year would be bulky. However, the authorities below have not considered the sample copies of invoices / bilties placed by the appellant on record. This argument is devoid of any force and cannot be accepted.
It appears proper to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the matter afresh after taking into consideration the so called sample copies of invoices / bilties submitted by the appellant to substantiate their claim. The appellant is directed to submit all the original documents or other evidence in support of the refund application irrespective of the fact that the record would be bulky or there may be very huge number of invoices. As this appeal is very old pertaining to year 2017, the Adjudicating Authority shall complete the exercise preferably within 3 months.
Conclusion - The appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to reconsider the refund claim on the basis of original documents, including sample invoices and bilties, and to complete the exercise preferably within three months.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1129
Exempt services or not - services declared under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) - HELD THAT:- It is found that while holding that the VCES was proper and nothing was mis-declared, learned Commissioner has not elaborately dealt with facts and the nature of the services and whether all of them were or some of them were exempted. For want of proper discussion and the comments, the matter remanded back and same is ordered accordingly.
The Bench appreciate the services of Shri Amber Kumrawat, Advocate as amicus curie in the matter - Matter is disposed of as remanded. Cross objection too stands disposed of.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1027
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Levy of service tax at the rate of 14-15% on the amount of ‘centage’, the penalty and other charges collected from the contractors - to fall within the definition of "Government," "Local Authority," or "Governmental Authority" under the Finance Act, 1994 or not - petitioner's receipt of 'centage' (a percentage of construction cost and toll collection) constitutes taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994 or is exempt as reimbursement of expenses or otherwise outside the ambit of service tax - Invocation of extended period of limitation.
Whether the petitioner/BRPNNL is a government or governmental authority? - HELD THAT:- The word “Governmental Authority” is defined under Mega Exemption Notification dated 20th June, 2012. In the case of Shapoorji Pallonji, this Court had occasion to consider the relevant clause 2 (s) of the Exemption Notification defining “Governmental Authority.” Clause 2 (s) defines the word “Governmental Authority” means a board, or an authority or any other body established with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control by Government and set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243-W of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shapoorji Pallonji [2023 (10) TMI 748 - SUPREME COURT] has considered the amended definition of the word “governmental authority” and held that as per definition of “governmental authority” as amended on 30.01.2014, an authority or board or any other body set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature is a “governmental authority.” - This Court held that since the IIT is falling within the definition of governmental authority, the notification dated 20th June, 2012 (Mega Exemption Notification) would exempt the activity of construction undertaken by the petitioner from payment of service tax.
In the case of Shapoorji Paloonji, it has been noticed by the Hon’ble Division Bench that vide Notification No.6/2015 Service Tax, dated 1st March, 2015, amending the Notification dated 20th June, 2012, item nos. (a), (c) and (f) of Entry 12 as reproduced above, stands omitted. While in the case of Shapoorji Paloonji, the contract for construction was granted to the petitioner on 20th December, 2012 and prior to that the Notification dated 20th June, 2012 had been issued and the same had taken effect from 1st July, 2012, in the case of present petitioner, apart from the fact that the petitioner does not come within the meaning of governmental authority, the petitioner has not been awarded any contract by the government during the relevant period which is financial year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (upto June, 2017). The ‘Modus Operandi’ of the petitioner which this Court has taken note of from the written submissions of the petitioner clearly shows that the petitioner invites tenders from the eligible bidders for undertaking construction of roads and bridges. Upon selection, an agreement is entered into with them to undertake the construction work.
It is found from the Circular No. 192/02/2016-Service Tax dated 13.04.2016 which clarifies the issue of liability of service tax on the services provided in lieu of fee charged by government or a local authority that any activity undertaken by government or a local authority against a consideration constitutes a service and the amount charged for performing such activities is liable to service tax - unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate by cogent evidence that it is engaged in providing services by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alteration of a road or bridge for use by the general public, it would not be possible to hold that its activity would be exempted under clause 13(a) of the Mega Exemption Notification.
Invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- If this is the declaration of the petitioner in Form ST-3, the allegation of the revenue that the petitioner had willfully suppressed the facts of their taxable value from the department with an intention to evade payment of service tax gains support. If the petitioner was claiming exemption from payment of service tax under the Mega Exemption Notification, it was obligatory upon the petitioner to make a correct declaration in Form ST-3 which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot succeed on this ground.
The Court found that law about excisability of exempted goods was settled by this Court in Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE [1989 (9) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT]. Till then conflicting decisions were rendered by different High Courts and Tribunals and it was not settled whether the turnover of assessable and exempted goods were liable to be clubbed for determining liability. Therefore, two questions arose, whether the appellant was bound in the state of uncertainty in law to include the turnover of the two items and if it failed to do so then it amounted to suppression of fact and second whether it was the duty of appellant to keep the Department informed about the turnover of the goods which were not liable to any duty. No rule could be pointed out requiring a manufacturer to disclose the turnover of exempted goods. It was held that even assuming it was, the appellant could not be held guilty of suppression when the law itself was not certain.
The facts of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company [1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT] are completely different from the facts of the present case. Here, we have noticed that petitioner is not engaged as a contractor for construction of roads and bridges and in ST Form-3 while answering question no.11.1 the petitioner answered in negative. The petitioner, therefore, did not declare that it is seeking benefit of exemption notification. The present case is clearly distinguishable.
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. If so advised, the petitioner may apply for the statutory remedy of appeal on any other ground or grounds within a period of eight weeks from today. If any such appeal is preferred and in case a question of limitation arises for consideration, the same will be considered by the appellate authority keeping in view the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing this writ application under bona fide belief.
Conclusion - i) Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited (BRPNNL) is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 does not fall within the meaning of word 'Government', 'Local Authority' and 'Governmental Authority'. ii) The petitioner does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 65B(26A), Section 65B(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 and clause 2(s) of the Mega Exemption N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as amended, for claiming exemption from service tax. iii) The 'centage' received by the petitioner for technical assistance and administrative support in construction and toll collection is consideration for taxable services under Section 65B(44) and Section 65B(51) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is not exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification or negative list under Section 66D. iv) Penalty or liquidated damages deducted from contractors for delay or breach of contract are compensatory payments and do not constitute consideration for taxable services under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence are not liable to service tax. v) The extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is rightly invoked in the present case due to willful suppression of facts and intent to evade payment of service tax.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1026
Voluntary disclosure made under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - failure to pay the declared amount within the stipulated time - seeking permission to pay the remaining dues in installments with interest after the Scheme's deadline has passed - challenge to notice issued under section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 demanding payment along with interest and penalty after the lapse of the Scheme's time limit - HELD THAT:- It appears that the petitioner had made voluntarily disclosure under the SVLDRS and did not deposit the amount required to be paid within 30 days from the date of issuance of FORM SVLDRS-03 accepting the payment of Rs. 10 Lakh. Therefore, there is clear breach of the provision of sub-section (5) of section 127 of the SVLDRS Scheme as per the Finance Act No. 2/2019.
As per FORM SVLDRS-3, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 39,56,239/-. However, the petitioner paid Rs. 10 Lakh on 11.04.2022 which is already accepted by the respondents without any demur and thereafter, the notice was issued by respondent on 02.05.2022 under section 87 (b) (i) of the Finance Act, 1994, imposing the interest of Rs. 56,11,139/- and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act,1994 quantified at Rs. 39,56,239/- for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 29,56,239/- which was not paid by the petitioner.
Circular No. 1071 dated 27.08.2019 further provides that if the tax payer makes a voluntary disclosure of Rs. 1 Crore, then he is required to deposit Rs. 1 Crore to settle his case and clause (j) of para 10 of the Circular provides that as per section 127 (5) of the Scheme, if the declarant does not pay amount within the stipulated time due to any reason, declaration will be treated as lapse. Therefore, it appears that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the provision of section 127 (5) of the Act however, the clarification issued by the Circular No. 1071 in para 10 (j) is not found in SVLDRS Scheme. There is no time limit prescribed under the Scheme or there is no prohibition prescribed under the Scheme for making the payment by the petitioner more particularly, when the respondents did not refuse to accept the part payment of Rs. 10 Lakh on 11.04.2022 paid by the petitioner in respect of SVLDRS Scheme,2019 which is through GST DRC-03.
Considering the facts of the case, it appears that if the petitioner is permitted to pay balance amount of Rs. 29,56,239/- with interest on 9% per annum in respect of the voluntary disclosure made by the petitioner under the SVLDRS, the objective of the Scheme would be met, more particularly, when the petitioner has come forward to make disclosure under the Scheme by making the entire payment of tax dues as per the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Scheme.
Conclusion - The petitioner had made voluntarily disclosure under the SVLDRS and did not deposit the amount required to be paid within 30 days from the date of issuance of FORM SVLDRS-03 accepting the payment of Rs. 10 Lakh. Therefore, there is clear breach of the provision of sub-section (5) of section 127 of the SVLDRS Scheme as per the Finance Act No. 2/2019.
The petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs. 29,56,239/- with 9% interest per annum from 30.06.2020 till the amount is realized by the respondent from the current bank account of the petitioner in ICICI Bank which is already attached by the respondent authority for recovery of the dues pertaining to the voluntary disclosure made by the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1025
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - short reversal on account of exempt service which was recoverable from them under Section 66, 68 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 - Suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - revovery alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The respondent has been audited for the period from April, 2008 to 2012 on 17.04.2013, again from September, 2011 to March 2013 (in respect of second registration) on 10.03.2014 and then for the period from April, 2013 to March, 2014 on 10.09.2014 by the departmental audit officers. Each time, their report mentions “Nil” which shows that the departmental officers did not find any irregularity in the records of the respondents including payment of taxes and reversal of credit as per CCR 2004, if any. The department proceeded to issue the show cause notice on 15th March, 2017 on the basis of observations of CERA. At this juncture, the department cannot take a plea that the facts of filing service tax returns with the department or audit of the records of the respondent were not in their knowledge. They cannot allege after a period six years that the assessee has suppressed vital informations from the department.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that neither the show cause notice nor the order of the adjudicating authority clearly elaborates as to which of the documents were suppressed by the Respondent, which could not have been seen by the departmental officers during conduct of regular audit by their own officers. The department has not been able to justify invocation of extended period in this case and therefore, without going into merits of the case, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
Conclusion - The export cargo handling service is excluded from the service tax net and does not constitute an exempted service requiring reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004. The demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was not sustainable. Furthermore, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to absence of any suppression or concealment.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1024
Review order passed by the Principal Commissioner - time barred under the limitation period prescribed for review proceedings - Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on canteen, housekeeping, and horticulture services, particularly outdoor catering services, under the Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT:- The first ground taken by the appellant, that the review order is time barred, is not sustainable in view of the fact that during the relevant period, COVID-19 was there and limitation period was extended by the Government vide Notification No. G.S.R. 418(E) [F.No. CBEC-20/06/2020-GST] dated 27.06.2020; accordingly, this ground does not have force and is decided against the appellant.
As regards the other issue that the adjudicating authority in compliance with the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which is an impugned order herein, has confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.6,29,384/- and has ordered for recovery of the same under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the Act. In view of this fact that the adjudicating authority has passed the order in compliance with the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal does not survive and the appellant has to challenge the order of the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals).
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1023
Levy of service tax - gross receipts reflecting in Form-26AS of the Appellant for the Financial Year, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 - correct method for determination of taxable value of catering services under the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, specifically Rule 2C - exemption claimed under the Mega Exemption Notification for catering services provided to premier medical institutions such as SGPGIMS and KGMU - HELD THAT:- The Appellant is providing ”Catering Services” to various hospitals and other establishments and the same has been taxed on the gross value of the receipts as shown in Form-26AS which is not correct.
The Appellant is entitled to the exemption of 40% and thereafter, taxable value has to be arrived and charged to service tax under the head of ‘Outdoor Catering Services’. Accordingly, the service tax liability would be Rs.6,44,227/- against which an amount of Rs.6,06,214/- has already been paid and directed to be appropriated in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. Further, it has been consistently held by the Tribunal that calculation of demand on the gross value reflecting in Form-26AS is not the correct method of arriving at the taxable value.
There are no ingredient of misstatement, suppression of facts etc. since catering services provided by the Appellant to the premier medical institutions is exempt from service tax vide Entry No.09(a) of the Mega exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No.06/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014 [Entry No.09(b)]. This is a fact on record that though the Appellant got himself registered in the Service Tax Department but in the absence of proper guidance was filing NIL ST-3 Returns whereas the Appellant should have mentioned the gross receipts and claim of exemption in the ST-3 Returns which could have avoided the entire proceedings - the Appellant has not only provided the catering services to SGPGI and KGMU but has also provided services to various others institutions/establishments and have also paid service tax on those services. The Appellant is directed pay the balance amount of service tax i.e. difference of Rs. 6,44,227/- – Rs.6,06,214/- alongwith applicable interest.
The demand of service tax is confined to Rs.6,44,227/-. Penalty imposed under Section 78 is set aside.
Conclusion - i) Taxable value for catering services must be determined as per Rule 2C of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and not on gross receipts. ii) Exemptions under Mega Exemption Notifications apply to catering services provided to specified premier medical institutions. iii) Penalties require a finding of misstatement or suppression, which was absent here; thus, penalties cannot be sustained.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1022
Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary services - commission received by first-line distributors from M/s FSL constitutes consideration - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The activity of a Distributor of identifying other persons, who can be roped in for sale of the M/s FSL products/marketing of the M/s FSL products and who on being sponsored by that Distributor are appointed by M/s FSL as second level of distributors, the activity of marketing or sale of the goods belonging to M/s FSL and the commission received by the Distributor from M/s FSL, which is linked to the performance of his sales group (group of the second level of distributors appointed on being sponsored by the Distributor) it is held that it should have to be treated as consideration for Business Auxiliary Service of sales promotion provided to M/s FSL. Therefore, service tax would be chargeable on the commission received by a Distributor from M/s FSL on the products purchased by his sales group. However, in the impugned orders service tax has been demanded on the gross amount of commission and no distinction has been made between the commission earned by a Distributor from M/s FSL based on his own volume of purchase from M/s FSL and the commission earned by him on the basis of the volume of purchases of M/s FSL products made by his sales group i.e. group of second level of Distributors appointed by M/s FSL on being sponsored by the Distributor.
In appellant’s own case there has been a decision by this Tribunal in case titled as Surendra Singh Rathore Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-1 [2013 (8) TMI 149 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] on same set of circumstances, the order has confirmed the demand of service tax on commission received by first line distributor of M/s FSL, holding it to be the consideration for rendering Business Auxiliary services to M/s FSL.
In the present case, the appellant has not provided any document to show that out of the alleged amount received by the appellant during the relevant period what amount has been received with respect to the commission received from M/s FSL on the products purchased by his sales group. On the contrary, when the M/s FSL was requested by adjudicating authorities below to quantify the demand it reported the distributor’s profit margin as ‘Nil’. The commission for sale or personal consumption was also reported as ‘Nil’. The entire amount as has been confirmed against the appellants in these appeals was reflected as the amount of commission linked with the performance of appellant.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There was no reason with the appellants to have believed that appellants are not liable to pay tax of the commission received from M/s FSL on the products purchased by his sales group. In the given circumstances, non-payment of service tax is rightly held to be an act of suppression to evade payment of duty - the extended period has rightly been invoked.
There are no infirmity in the order and the order is upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1021
Liability to pay service tax - registered rent-a-cab operator service provider or service recipient is liable to pay service tax - failure to file ST-3 returns for the relevant period - suppression of tax or not - burden of proof - HELD THAT:- The service tax liability with respect to ‘rent-a-cab operator’ service was to be discharged by the service recipient under Reverse Charge Mechanism. The recipient here is M/s GAIL India Ltd. who have acknowledged to have paid the entire service tax. This observation itself is sufficient for me to hold that the appellant cannot be asked to again pay the same amount of service tax for the same the period as stands already paid by the service recipient in compliance of the Notification No. 30/2012.
Department’s own circular (CBEC) bearing No. 341/18/2004 has clarified that the Reverse Charge Mechanism should not lead to double taxation i.e. once the tax liability is discharged regardless of the person, who discharged the assessee cannot be made to pay the tax again.
Coming to the plea that the invoice value/order value was inclusive of service tax foremost the perusal of the invoice falsified the said contention of the department. Even if the contract/tender document is looked into clause 2 specifically excludes the service tax from the invoice value. Few clauses talks about inclusion of service tax in the gross value, however, with the condition that in case the appellant/service provider is liable to pay service tax. As already discussed above, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax in terms of Notification No. 30/2012. It is, therefore, held that the appellant was not required to file ST-3 returns in terms of Section 70 of Finance Act. Thus, the demand has wrongly been confirmed and the penalties have wrongly imposed.
It is also apparent and admitted fact that the demand has been confirmed based on 26AS, the information from tax department. Such third party information cannot be the basis of confirmation of demand - It is also observed that department has not proved any act of suppression on part of appellant as is otherwise alleged for invoking the extended period of limitation while issuing the show cause notice.
Conclusion - It is a coordinal postulate of law that the burden of proving any form of the mala fide lies on the shoulders of the one alleging it. Based on these observations, it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the demand of service tax and imposition of penalty.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1020
Levy of service tax - professional fees received by an advocate on a reverse charge basis - rental income received from the residential property rented to a business entity - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority has dropped the demand on profession income but confirmed the demand on rental income received from the residential property. Further, it is found that on appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand on rental income received from the residential property. Hence, once both the demands have been dropped, one by the adjudicating authority and another by the appellate authority, then confirming the demand on the basis of figures shown in the C.A. certificate, is not sustainable in law.
The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the show cause notices because in the show cause notices, demand was raised on lower amount, whereas in the impugned order, demand has been confirmed on higher amount, which is not permissible in law - the department has not produced any evidence to establish the invocation of extended period of limitation as the appellant has not suppressed any facts from the department and has been filing the returns regularly.
Conclusion - i) Service tax on professional fees of advocates is payable on reverse charge basis and demand cannot be confirmed if liability is duly discharged. ii) Rental income from residential property is exempt from service tax even if rented to a business entity.
The impugned order is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1019
Reversal of CENVAT credit by a construction company engaged in residential complex development - flats sold post-issuance of completion certificates - consideration received towards construction / development of parking area - consideration received towards development costs - compensation received towards cancellation/termination of Joint Development Agreement and Power of Attorney under the declared service - income recognized as forfeiture income' on account of cancellation of bookings - short payment of service tax under ‘Interior Design Consultancy Service’ - Non-reversal of proportionate input service credit attributable to retention charges, in respect of the services received from contractors / sub-contractors - time limitation.
Reversal of Cenvat credit of Rs.63,07,843/-during the period from August 2012 to September 2015 - HELD THAT:- The Explanation under the amended Rule 6 stating that the exempted services as defined in Rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall include an activity, which is not a ‘service’ as defined in section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 is only clarificatory in nature in as much as the pre-amended Rule 6 also defined the categories of sales which cannot fall under the exempted category and the clearances made by the appellant after receipt of completion certificate which were not liable to service tax clearly fall under the exempted category. The claim of the appellant that only from 01.04.2016 the flats sold by them without payment of service tax is to be considered as exempted service is misplaced since all goods and services on which duties/service tax was not paid are considered as exempted and they are not eligible for the input credit.
In the present case, the dispute is that the partial occupancy certificate was issued on 4th May 2011 in respect of Polaris B block and on 23.11.2011 for Vega Block C and final Occupancy Certificate dated 04.10.2012 for all the blocks A,B, and C and the flats sold after that have received consideration of Rs. 11,15,29,085/- on which no service tax is paid. The claim of the appellant is that they are not liable to reverse cenvat credit in view of the above judgments, is totally misplaced, since the facts of that case is that proportionate credit was reversed or not taken and the only dispute was the demand of 8% credit on exempted goods which was allowed. However, in the instant case, neither the appellant had availed proportionate cenvat credit nor had maintained separate accounts, therefore, the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable.
Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 does not include an activity which constitutes merely a transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner. Since, the clearance of flats after the receipt of completion certificate are considered to be sale of immovable property, they are not liable to pay service tax - appellants are required to reverse the cenvat credit of Rs.29,67,608/-, the proportionate credit availed on those flats which are cleared after the receipt of the Completion Certificate. Consequently, reversal of cenvat credit of Rs.63,07,843/- is set aside but reversal of proportionate credit is upheld. Hence, it is remanded for limited purpose of re-quantification of proportionate cenvat credit.
Non-payment of service tax of Rs.3,19,777/- on consideration received towards construction / development of parking area in 'The Promont' Project, during the period from March, 2012 to September, 2012 - HELD THAT:- The demand of service tax on the consideration received for ‘parking area’ service is accepted by the appellant and only penalty is being disputed. Hence, on merit this amount is confirmed along with interest.
Non-payment of service tax of Rs.5,54,63,589/- on the consideration received towards development costs, from M/s Promont Hilltop Private Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The demand is being contested on the ground that the amounts received cannot be classified as works contract service since the Transferee was incorporated only on 24th September 2012 and the Appellant merely relinquishes all rights, assets and liabilities pertinent to ‘The Promont’ project for a ‘consideration’, pursuant to the Development Agreement. There is no existence of service provider-recipient relationship and no provision of service pursuant to the Development Agreement - As per Section 3(26) of General Clauses Act, 1897, ‘immovable property’ shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Right to develop the project transferred vide the Development Agreement amounts to transfer of bundle of rights that arise out of and relate to the land - The transaction is merely a transfer of going concern exempted vide Sl. No. 37 of the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20th June 2012 and non-taxability of such transfer is clarified by the Education Guide dated 20th June 2012 published by CBEC.
From the above Clauses of the Agreement, it is clear that there is no sale of an ongoing concern as claimed by the appellant as there is nothing in the Agreement to deem it to be sale or transfer, instead it establishes the fact that the Agreement is based on sharing of 22.5% of the gross proceeds which later was revised to 2.5% of gross proceeds. The actual consideration charged as development costs, which includes construction, marketing and sales of the project, which is in the nature of works contract, hence, the Commissioner after deducting the cost of land has determined the value as Rs.112,18,36,343/- and rightly provided 40% abatement. However, the demand is upheld only for the normal period, hence, it is remanded for limited purpose for re-quantification.
Non-payment of service tax of Rs. 24,72,000/- on compensation received towards cancellation/termination of Joint Development Agreement and Power of Attorney under the declared service category listed in Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The Appellant had entered into Joint Development Agreements with prospective owners. However, due to certain disputes, legal proceedings were initiated between the parties inter se. Thereafter, it was decided to settle the dispute amicably. Consequently, 'Deed of Cancellation’ of Joint Development Agreement and ‘Power of Attorney’ dated 6th January, 1998 and ‘Supplemental Agreement’ dated 22nd May, 1998 and ‘Deed of Cancellation’ dated 10th April, 2013, the prospective owners agreed to pay the Appellant a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- towards compensation for relinquishing rights under the said Agreements and towards reimbursement of cost incurred towards execution of project, as full and final settlement. By virtue of Section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994, agreeing to cancel Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for consideration amounts to a taxable service - reliance is placed on Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST dated 3rd August, 2022, which has been adopted for Service tax demands under Section 66E(e) vide Circular No. 214/1/2023-S.T. dated 28th February, 2023.
There are no reason to agree with the Commissioner in as much as the amounts received were only a compensation and not a consideration for any service rendered by the appellant, hence, the demand of 24,72,000/- stands set aside.
Non-payment of service tax of Rs.2,06,186/- on income recognized as forfeiture income' on account of cancellation of bookings - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the 'Agreement for sale' and 'Construction Agreement' both dated 23rd October, 2008 entered into between M/s. Tata Housing Development Company Limited and the prospective buyers, that in the event of default by the prospective buyer in payment of instalments, as per agreed Payment Schedule or in the event of cancellation / withdrawal of booking / application on his own volition, the buyer forfeits 10% of the total consideration payable by the prospective buyer - amounts retained by the appellant in breach of the contract/in terms of the contract for cancellation of the purchase of the flats cannot be considered as service under 66E(e) and hence, not liable to pay service tax. Consequently, service tax demand of Rs.2,06,186/- is set aside.
Short-payment of service tax of Rs.1,27,726/- from M/s. Suying Design Private Limited under ‘Interior Design Consultancy Service’ - HELD THAT:- The demand of short-payment of service tax on the on 'interior design consultancy' service is accepted by the appellant and paid along with interest and only penalty is being disputed hence, on merit these amounts are confirmed along with interest. Accordingly, short-payment of Service tax of Rs.1,27,726/- from M/s. Suying Design Private Limited under ‘Interior Design Consultancy Service’ is upheld along with interest.
Non-reversal of proportionate input service credit attributable to retention charges, in respect of the services received from contractors / sub-contractors (Amount Rs.5,80,728/-) - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner has confirmed demand of Rs.5,80,728/- being service tax amount to be reversed on the amount of Rs.98,45,774/- retained by the appellant as shown in their Trial Balance as on 31.03.2014, however, there is no evidence to show that these amounts were not paid to the contractors / sub-contractors on completion of the projects. Moreover, there is no dispute that cenvat credit was availed only after payment of the service tax. The Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Thermax Engineering Construction Co. Ltd. [2017 (12) TMI 1191 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has observed 'As regard appeal filed by the department against dropping of demand on retention money and on Export of Service, we find that though the amount against supply of services by the sub-contractors was retained by the assessee but the amount of service tax was paid in full to the supplier/ vendor. The amount was retained by the assessee in terms of understanding between the assessee and their vendors and not due to non payment. The same was agreed to by both the parties.'
Since there is no dispute that the service tax amounts have been paid based on which the cenvat credit has been taken and considering the above decisions relied upon by the appellant, the demand with regard to reversal of cenvat credit is set aside. Consequently, reversal of proportionate input service tax of Rs.5,80,728/- is set aside.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner in the impugned order except for stating that certain disclosures were not made has not brought in any of the factors that prove misdeclaration or suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, going by the decision of the apex court that suppression cannot be presumed needs to be proved with certainty and factual incidents to prove intention to evade payment of duty, we do not find any reason to confirm the demand beyond the normal period.
Conclusion - i) Demand of reversal of Cenvat credit of Rs.63,07,843/- during the period from August 2012 to September 2015 is set aside but upheld the reversal of proportionate credit and remanded for limited purpose for re-quantification of proportionate credit. ii) Non-payment of service tax of Rs.3,19,777/- on consideration received towards construction / development of parking area in 'The Promont' Project, during the period from March, 2012 to September, 2012" is upheld along with interest, since accepted and not contested by the appellant. iii) Non-payment of service tax of on the consideration received towards development costs from M/s. Promont Hilltop Private Limited by wrongly claiming it as 'Sale of Development Rights', in respect of 'The Promont' Project, during the period from October, 2012 to June, 2015 is upheld; however, remanded for limited purpose for re-quantification of service tax demand for normal period only. iv) Non-payment of service tax of Rs. 24,72,000/- on compensation received towards cancellation/termination of Joint Development Agreement and Power of Attorney under the declared service category listed in Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 is set aside. v) Non-payment of service tax of Rs.2,06,186/- on income recognized as forfeiture income' on account of cancellation of bookings made by the customers under the declared service during the period from April, 2014 to March, 2015 is set aside. vi) Short payment of service tax of Rs. 1,27,726/-on the services received from M/s Suying Design Private Limited, Singapore on account of retention of a part-value of 'interior design consultancy' service, is upheld along with interest, since accepted and not contested by the appellant, which is also appropriated in the impugned order. vii) Demand of Service Tax of Rs.5,80,728/- for non-reversal of proportionate input service credit attributable to retention charges, in respect of the services received from contractors / sub-contractors is set aside. viii) All the penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 are set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1018
Refund claim - barred by time limitation or not - rejection on the ground that the refund claim was filed belatedly after more than one year whereas as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The issue is well-covered by various case-law. This Tribunal in the case of M/S. OIL INDIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX DIBRUGARH [2023 (3) TMI 740 - CESTAT KOLKATA] has held as under 'it is concluded that the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable to the refund claimed by the Appellant since the amount paid by the Appellant is not a tax.'
Conclusion - The appellant has filed the refund claim correctly without having to fulfil the time-limit condition specified under Section 11B ibid.
Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to take up the refund claim filed by the appellant for processing and to pass a considered decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this Order - appeal disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 939
Rejection of the declarations made by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - scope of Appellate Forum as per Section 121 (f) of the SVLDRS - HELD THAT:- The respondent-Designated Committee is formed under the Rule-5 of the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDRS) Rules, 2019 for short (for short ‘the Rules’) under consist of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax as the case may be and the Additional Commissioner or the joint Commissioner of the Central Excise and Service Tax as the case may be and as per the proviso, there shall be only one such Designated Committee in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. Therefore, the application filed on-line by the petitioner is required to be considered by the respondent No. 3-Designated Committee as per Rule 5 of the Rules.
The SVLDRS is part of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 with an object to reduce the litigation of all other Acts which were subsumed under the GST Act and as per the provisions of Section 122 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, all the Indirect Tax Enactments are covered for application of the Scheme which included the Act, 1963 also.
SVLDRS being a Scheme framed by the Central Government in the Finance Act, the object of the Scheme is to reduce the litigation in view of the coming into force of the GST Act with effect from 01.07.2017 as such litigation was pertaining to the various Indirect Tax Enactments and by this SVLDRS, the tax payers were granted the relief as per the provisions of Section 124 and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit under the Scheme regarding the Cess levied under the Act, 1963 as the Scheme was made applicable to the said Act. Therefore, merely because the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal under the said Act was not covered by the definition of Appellate Forum under Section 121 (f) of the Finance Act, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits of the SVLDRS and the petitioner therefore, is entitled to the benefit of the SVLDRS by application of Section 123 (b) of the Finance Act which provides for tax dues regarding the show-cause notice issued under the Indirect Tax Enactment prior to 30th June, 2019.
The respondent-Designated Committee is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 considering the same under clause (b) of Section 123 of the SVLDRS for computation of tax dues to grant the relief under Section 124 (1) (a) of the SVLDRS for tax dues relating to the show-cause notice and thereafter, grant four weeks’ time to pay the tax as computed by the petitioner as per Form SVLDRS-1 and on payment of such tax, issue the Form SVLDRS-4 forthwith.
Conclusion - The petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Scheme regarding the Cess levied under the Act, 1963 as the Scheme was made applicable to the said Act. Therefore, merely because the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal under the said Act is not covered by the definition of Appellate Forum under Section 121 (f) of the Finance Act, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits of the SVLDRS and the petitioner therefore, is entitled to the benefit of the SVLDRS by application of Section 123 (b) of the Finance Act which provides for tax dues regarding the show-cause notice issued under the Indirect Tax Enactment prior to 30th June, 2019.
Petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
