Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (12) TMI 1442

ld not mean that the First Proviso to subsection (1) of Section 106 of the Finance Act, would come into operation - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of Durgapur Diesel Sales & Service & Another Versus Superintendent (Service Tax) Central Excise Durgapur – I Division & Others [2015 (2) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] where it was held that The second proviso envisaged an embargo in making a declaration even for a subsequent period on the same issue - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/20113/2017-SM - Final Order No. 23298 / 2017 - Dated:- 28-12-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Pradyumna G. H. Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is d .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013 in right perspective. He further submitted that both the authorities below have wrongly rejected the application of the appellant declaring the service tax dues of ₹ 44,77,468/- for the period from April 2009 to December 2012. He further submitted that earlier show-cause notice dated 20.10.2010 was issued demanding service tax of ₹ 16,91,088/- for the period from April 2005 to March 2009. He further submitted that the dues declared by the appellant in their VCES application did not pertain to the period in respect of which the show-cause notice dated 20.10.2010, which had been issued by the Additional Commissioner. He also submitted that admittedly the appellant had not filed ST .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

tly come to the conclusion that the case of the appellant falls under the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 106. He further submitted that on an identical issue, the Calcutta High Court in the case of Durgapur Diesel Sales and Service vs. CCE reported in 2013 (38) STR 1129 (Cal.) has upheld the rejection under the VCES. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that the only issue for determination is whether the rejection of VCES application filed by the appellant is in order or not. Further, I also find that the application has been rejected by invoking the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 106, which is reproduced herein below: Section 106. (1) any person may declare his tax dues in respect of which no notice .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

appellants are not entitled to a declaration because of the second proviso to Section 106(1) of the said Act. Therefore, the decision taken by the lower authority is legally sustainable. It is also observed from the records that after the issue of show-cause notice upto 03/2009, the appellants have not complied with the service tax provisions for further period as well. In this regard, I would like to rely on the decision in the case of M/s. Durgarpur Diesel Sales and Service: 2015 (38) STR 1129 wherein it is held that The second proviso envisaged an embargo in making a declaration even for a subsequent period on the same issue . 7. In view of the reasons given for the rejection, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which is .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||