TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax of the petitioner and the Voluntary Scheme availed by the petitioner was only to square up his admitted Service Tax liability for the past period from 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2012, which payment was allowed to be made in instalments in a staggered manner before December 2013 and June 2014, as per the provisions of the said Scheme. That Declaration and Scheme itself can of course, have no effect on the subsequent period commencing from January 2013. The said Scheme availed by the petitioner having no effect in the impugned assessment proceedings for the subsequent period commencing from January 2013. Petition dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 874 of 2016 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. Mr. K. Arun Kumar, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 4,82,51,895/- . The said Declaration was furnished by the petitioner-Company on 31.12.2013 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the due payments under the said Scheme were also made by the petitioner-Company and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted in the Writ Petition that the impugned show cause notice issued by the respondent - authority vide Annexure D on 13.10.2014 is contrary to the provisions of the said VCES Scheme, as the Scheme provided, for an immunity from penalty to the petitioner-Company. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for quashing of the impugned Show Cause Notice Annexure D dated 13.10.2014 as well as the impugned order, later on passed in pursuance to the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quent period, cannot be granted. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraphs-4 and 24.3 of the impugned order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the respondent-Commissioner. The same are quoted below for ready reference: 4. It further appeared during the course of preliminary verification of documents that M/s. K2K had opted for VCES, 2013 to discharge their Service Tax liability for the period upto 31-12-2012. It appeared from the VCES-1 and VCES-2 forms that M/s K2K have declared Service Tax liability amounting to ₹ 4,82,51,895/- vide their VCES-1 dated 30-12-2013 and acknowledgement has been issued by the department vide VCES-2 dated 31-12-2013 for the said Service Tax dues. As M/s K2K have already filed VCES declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service tax. As such, the proposal for penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is sustainable and fully justified as they have deliberately suppressed the vital facts from the department with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax. 7. Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned Counsel has further submitted that the said Order-in-original dated 10.10.2017 is further appealable to the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT) under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 , and the challenge to the said order cannot be laid in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e subsequent period commencing from January 2013 has been duly discussed in paragraph-4 of the impugned order quoted above. 9. This Court finds no reason to take a different view of the matter and stretch the benefit of the Scheme for the petitioner for the period after December 20 12. Therefore, the challenge laid to the impugned show cause notice and the order passed by the Commissioner in the present Writ Petition on that basis is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The same is accordingly rejected. 10. The impugned order is also appealable before the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, if the assessee is aggrieved by the said order on its own merits, the petitioner-Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
