TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for adjournment in Form SVLDRS-2A and in response even Form SVLDRS-2B had been assigned for such purpose. The revenue as well, as a matter of fact, has referred to that Form SVLDRS-2B had been issued, albeit, there has been typographical / clerical error in the same. It is not denied that on 03/03/2020, the petitioners had requested for hearing on 05/03/2020 and in response thereto, found Form SVLDRS-2B had been issued with error showing hearing to be held on 09/03/2021 but on 07/03/2020 itself impugned order Form SVLDRS-3 has been passed. It is a peculiar case wherein personal hearing under the scheme could not take place for the errors which are not attributable to the petitioners, resulting in an order running adverse to petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable on the security services rendered with interest and penalty. During the proceedings, the petitioners had informed the respondents its intention to settle the matter by filing an application before the Settlement Committee under section 32E(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, by which time, the petitioners claim to have deposited ₹ 40,00,000/towards the service tax dues and subsequently had even paid an additional amount of ₹ 10,00,000/-, aggregating to ₹ 50,00,000/-. 3. In the meanwhile, Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short, SVLDRS ) came into force under the Finance Act, 2019. The Government of India had also framed Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Rules, 2019. 4. Learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax liability a sum of ₹ 1,99,302/- only, taking into account already deposited sum of Rs,50,00,000/-. 6. Yet on 28/02/2020 Form SVLDRS-2 had been issued for ₹ 51,99,302/- stating that if the petitioners do not agree with the estimated amount payable, the petitioners would appear for personal hearing on 02/03/2020. The petitioners had also responded to SVLDRS-2 stating that it does not agree with the amount calculated by the Designated Committee since having already deposited ₹ 50,00,000/which are supported by the copies of challan and would be shown and produced during the personal hearing. The petitioners, on 02/03/2020, requested to re-schedule the date of hearing to 05/03/2020 issuing Form SVLDRS-2A. According to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leaving very little scope for discretion and the Board Circular dated 27/08/2019 has been referred to. Since both the taxpayer as well as the department are aware of the duty amount in the form of show-cause notice / order of determination or a written communication, it is not intended to be adjucatory in nature. 9. From aforesaid, fairly clear position emerges that petitioners claim of having deposited a sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- towards service tax liability pursuant to show-cause notice is not denied; and it is required to be ascertained as to whether the payment claimed by the petitioners is towards said liability and as such, hearing was necessary, a room for which is given in the scheme, particularly under section 127. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
