TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with non-payment of tax on the Construction Service, whereas, the earlier case is in respect of appellant's liability to service tax on the construction undertaken under Works Contract Service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/40150/2017-SM - 41618/2017 - Dated:- 10-8-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant - Dr, P. Ravindran, Adv. For the Respondent - Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa The appellant, who is engaged in providing Construction of Complex Services filed a declaration in terms of provisions of service tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme on 31.12.2013 declaring the tax dues of ₹ 6,59,679/- for the period from J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the past period, when it sought to avail advantage of exemption notification does not bar the remedy under section 106. Accordingly, it is decided in favour of the assessee. 3. After hearing the learned departmental representative, I find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above referred matter has observed as under:- It is evident that the Scheme was introduced to give benefit of one one-time amnesty or relief to service tax defaulters or those who had not paid their dues fully. In its terms, the assessment as to the liability has to be made and if the declaration or application is found to be in order and compliant with the provisions, the authority would accept the application and grant immunity from prosecution and als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claration or liability is for the period of 01.04.2012 to 31.12.2012. The order in question also does not show any different facts. Therefore, the view of the designated authority that the pendency of the issue or question of the petitioner's liability for the past period when it sought to avail the advantage of the exemption notification bars the remedy under Section 106 is clearly in error. 4. It stands clearly observed that pendency of liability for the past period cannot act as a bar for seeking the advantage of the exemption scheme. Otherwise also I find that it is not the Revenue's case that the dispute in the present case as also in the earlier pending case, were similar. The present case deals with non-payment of tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
