2016 (9) TMI 899

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the rate of tax stood revised to 12.36% - Held that:- it was not obligatory for the Respondent to inform the Petitioner what the correct rate of service tax was. It was for the Petitioner to have ascertained the correct rate of tax and calculated the service tax liability accordingly. There is no provision in the VCES, which permits correction of errors of this nature by the Petitioner. In this w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Voluntarily Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) in 2013. The Petitioner, for the period 1st April 2011 to 31st December 2012, applied under the VCES and declared a service tax liability of ₹ 10,95,191/-. The Petitioner deposited 50% of the said amount, i.e., ₹ 5,38,690/-, on 30th December 2013 and ₹ 8,910/- on 31st December, 2013. The remaining 50 %, i.e., ₹ 5,47,596/- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tates that the actual shortfall in the deposit of service tax does not work out to even 0.1% and applying the de minimis principle, the lapse of the Petitioner should be overlooked. 4. The Petitioner does not dispute that on the date of raising the invoice for rendering services, the rate of tax stood revised to 12.36%. Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the date of the purchase order, i.e., .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X