9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etor. Petitioner is a government licensed electrical contractor and engineer. It provides taxable services while carrying works contract services, supply of manpower services and repairs and maintenance services to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. Petitioner was holder of service tax registration certificate under the jurisdiction of Navi Mumbai Commissionerate. 4. A summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly 'the CGST Act' hereinafter) was issued to the petitioner from the office of Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, Navi Mumbai on 05.01.2018 informing the petitioner that an enquiry against it had been initiated for evasion of government dues (service tax dues) in connection with which the proprietor was summoned for appearance. Pursuant to such summons, proprietor had appeared before the authorities and his statement was recorded on 11.01.2018. Petitioner acknowledged in his statement that outstanding service tax dues for the period from 2015-2016 to June, 2017 was Rs. 60 lakhs (approximately). In this connection, Superintendent (Anti-Evasion, G-V), office of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te contemplated in section 129 shall be issued in form SVLDRS-4. 9. In terms of the scheme, petitioner filed application (declaration) on 12.12.2019 in SVLDRS-1 form under the category "Investigation, Enquiry or Audit" with further sub-categorization as 'Investigation by Commissionerate'. Petitioner mentioned that the amount of service tax dues was Rs. 91,29,094.00 which amount was paid as predeposit. Therefore, it was mentioned that the amount required to be paid by the petitioner i.e. tax dues less tax relief was 'nil'. 10. On 22.01.2020 petitioner received email from the respondents wherein it was mentioned that the application (declaration) of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of ineligibility. In the remarks column, it was mentioned that the application (declaration) was rejected as the investigation was still going on and the duty amount was pending for quantification. 11. Aggrieved, present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 12. Respondents have filed affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that in response to summons, proprietor of the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer on 11.01.2018 whereafter his state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents has referred to section 125(1) and submits that under clause (e) thereof, petitioner was ineligible to make a declaration. Therefore, the Designated Committee had rightly rejected the declaration of the petitioner. No interference is called for. 16. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 17. From the above, it is evident that proprietor of the petitioner Mr. Govind Ramlu Palle in his statement before the investigating authority recorded on 11.01.2018 in connection with the enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner responded to question No.3 as to what was the outstanding service tax liability as on 30.06.2017 by stating that service tax liability of Rs. 60 lakhs (approximately) was still outstanding for the period from 2015-2016 to June, 2017. Referring to the said statement, Superintendent (Anti-Evasion, G-V), CGST and Central Excise, Navi Mumbai wrote to the proprietor of the petitioner on 24.01.2018 reminding him that he had admitted service tax liability of the petitioner at Rs. 60 lakhs (approximately) and had promised to discharge Rs. 15 lakhs by 15.01.2018 which he had not discharged. 18. Having noticed the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form indicating the amount payable by the declarant. Under sub section (2), where the amount estimated to be payable by the declarant as estimated by the Designated Committee exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then the Designated Committee shall issue the estimate in the prescribed electronic form to the declarant informing him about the estimated amount. Under sub section (3), after the issue of estimate under sub section (2), the Designated Committee shall give an opportunity of being heard to the declarant and after hearing the declarant, the Designated Committee shall issue a statement in the prescribed form indicating the amount payable by the declarant. 23. From a conjoint reading of sub sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 127, the picture that emerges is that if the amount estimated by the Designated Committee is equal to the amount declared by the declarant, then the Designated Committee shall issue a statement in electronic form indicating the amount payable by the declarant. However, if the amount estimated by the Designated Committee is higher than the amount declared by the declarant, the Designated Committee shall give an opportunity of hearing to the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report etc. * * * * * *" 26.3. Clause (g) of paragraph 10 makes it abundantly clear that cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand has been quantified on or before 30.06.2019 would be eligible under the scheme. The word "quantified" has been defined under the scheme as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. In such circumstances, Board clarified that such written communication would include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc. 27. We have already noticed that proprietor of the petitioner in his statement recorded on 11.01.2018 by the investigating authority admitted the service tax liability of Rs. 60 lakhs (approximately) to be outstanding for the period from 2015-2016 to June, 2017. This was corroborated by the departmental authority in the letter dated 24.01.2018 which we have already noted and discussed. Therefore, present is a case where there is acknowledgment by the petitioner of the duty liability as well as by the department in its communication to the petitioner. Thus, it can be said that in the case of the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner's tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. 50. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019." 30. There is one more reason which would justify our intervention in this case. We have already noticed that in a case where the amount estimated by the Designated Committee exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then a hearing is given by the Designated Committee to the declarant before determining the amount to be paid by the declarant. In a situation where Designated Committee grants hearing to a declarant when the amount estimated by it exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then it would be wholly inconceivable that before an application (declaration) is rejected on the ground of ineligibility, no hearing is granted to the declarant. In Thought Blurb (supra), it was held as under :- "51. We have already discussed that under sub sections (2) and (3) of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
