TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 01.07.2019 which was beyond the cut off date of 30.06.2019, thus rendering the petitioner ineligible. In our view, such a construction does not conform to the letter and spirit of the scheme as we have discussed above. The scheme talks about quantification of the tax dues and not communication thereof. The quantification having been done vide letter dated 15.06.2019, receipt of copy thereof whether email or physical becomes immaterial. It is the date of quantification which is relevant because in this case the quantification has been done by the authority. That apart, it was clarified by the Board that since 30.06.2019 was a public holiday being a Sunday, therefore, in terms of section 10(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the relevant date should be considered as 01.07.2019 instead of 30.06.2019. Allegation that the letter dated 15.06.2019 did not indicate complete quantification as per letter of the Anti Evasion Wing dated 20.11.2019 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is a clear demand made by the respondents upon the petitioner and there is no reason not to accept the said figure as the amount of service tax dues payable by the petitioner for the period under co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No.5 vide letter dated 16.02.2019 on the allegation of short payment of service tax for the period from 2014-15 to 2017-18. In the course of the inquiry, letter dated 15.06.2019 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.5 stating that service tax dues amounting to ₹ 39,56,080.00 was to be paid by the petitioner along with interest and penalty. Petitioner says that it received the said letter via email on 29.06.2019 and the physical copy on 01.07.2019. 5. When the Central Government introduced the scheme through the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 petitioner filed declaration on 13.11.2019 in the prescribed form under the category of investigation, inquiry or audit with sub-categorization under the heading of investigation by commissionerate. The amount of service tax payable was declared at the same figure of ₹ 39,56,080.00 as intimated to the petitioner by respondent No.5 vide the letter dated 15.06.2019 with tax less tax relief payable at ₹ 11,86,824.00. 6. On 06.12.2019 SVLDRS Form No.2 was issued to the petitioner wherein estimated amount payable by the petitioner was determined by the designated committed at ₹ 11,86,824.00. In the same fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of the claim of the petitioner. Anti Evasion Wing vide letter dated 20.11.2019 informed respondent No.3 that the letter dated 15.06.2019 was received by the petitioner on 01.07.2019. That apart, the said letter was not conclusive as to the service tax liability of the petitioner as only service tax liability on joint development agreement was communicated. Service tax liability on advances received for legal fees/transport charges etc. was not verified as the relevant documents were yet to be collected. 10.2. In such circumstances, designated committee took the view that since the date of receipt of the letter dated 15.06.2019 was 01.07.2019 which was beyond the cut off date of 30.06.2019, petitioner was not eligible to file the declaration under the scheme. That apart, the quantum of service tax dues mentioned in the letter dated 15.06.2019 was not conclusive as verification of further documents was necessary. 10.3. Referring to section 125(1)(e) of Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 respondents have justified rejection of the declaration of the petitioner by the designated committee. 11. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Therefore a detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of ₹ 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. 14. Subsequently, in M/s G.R.Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-2031-HC-MUM-ST, this court held as follows:- 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 ₹ 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayable 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. 23. Reverting back to the facts of the present case we find that there is clear admission / acknowledgment by the petitioner about the service tax liability. The acknowledgment is dated 27.06.2019 i.e., before 30.06.2019 both in the form of letter by the petitioner as well as statement of its Director, Shri. Sanjay R. Shirke. In fact, on a pointed query by the Senior Intelligence Officer as to whether petitioner accepted and admitted the revised service tax liability of ₹ 2,47,32,456.00, the Director in his statement had clearly admitted and accepted the said amount as the service tax liability for the period from 2015-16 upto June, 2017 with further clarification that an amount of ₹ 1,20,60,000.00 was already paid. * * * * * * * * 26. Following the above it is evident that the word quantified under the scheme would mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable which will include a letter intimating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantification which is relevant because in this case the quantification has been done by the authority. That apart, it was clarified by the Board that since 30.06.2019 was a public holiday being a Sunday, therefore, in terms of section 10(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the relevant date should be considered as 01.07.2019 instead of 30.06.2019. 18. In so far the objection of the respondents that the letter dated 15.06.2019 did not indicate complete quantification as per letter of the Anti Evasion Wing dated 20.11.2019, this aspect has already been gone into by this Court as alluded to herein-above. In the present case, there is a clear demand made by the respondents upon the petitioner and there is no reason not to accept the said figure as the amount of service tax dues payable by the petitioner for the period under consideration. Regarding the views expressed by the Anti Evasion Wing of the department vide its letter dated 20.11.2019, it needs no reiteration that if the authority relies upon any material which is adverse to a party, principles of natural justice require that such material be furnished to the party in question so that it can defend its case properly. 19. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng any opportunity of hearing to the declarant would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Rejection of application (declaration) will lead to adverse civil consequences for the declarant as he would have to face the consequences of enquiry or investigation or audit. As has been held by us in Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (supra) it is axiomatic that when a person is visited by adverse civil consequences, principles of natural justice like notice and hearing would have to be complied with. Non-compliance to the principles of natural justice would impeach the decision making process rendering the decision invalid in law. 21. Thus, on a thorough consideration of the matter, we are of the view that rejection of the declaration of the petitioner was not justified. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 14.05.2020 and remand the matter back to the respondents (designated committee) to consider afresh the declaration of the petitioner dated 13.11.2019 as a valid declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of investigation, inquiry and audit and thereafter grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner. Petitioner shall be afforded an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
