9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y issue which therefore arises for determination in the present Writ Petition is, i. Whether the tax dues of the Petitioner were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 as per the provisions of the SVLDRS scheme? In order to arrive at a determination of the above issue, it is essential to set out the facts leading upto the filing of the said Form SVLDRS-1 as also to consider the relevant provisions of the SVLDRS scheme and relevant notifications issued in respect thereof. 2. Petitioner is a company providing outdoor catering services by way of running corporate cafeteria services for various companies, industries etc. Petitioner at all relevant times was registered under the Finance Act (Service Tax), 1994 and held Registration No. AAKCS3672BST001. When the new Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act") came into force, Petitioner registered itself under the provisions thereof. Thereafter certain intelligence was gathered by the officers of Respondent No. 2 that Petitioner was charging and collecting service tax from its clients and not depositing the same with the Government Exchequer. In view of this an inquiry was initiated by Respondent No. 2 and a summons dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is apparently a huge difference during the years 2013-14 to 201617. Please state the reasons for the same. Ans: I accept that there were apparently differences in the value as declared in Profit & Loss Account vis-a-vis the value declared in the ST-3 Returns. In this regard, we have done reconciliation and have fully paid the differential Service Tax amounting to Rs. 90 Lakhs after your visit to our premises on 14.03.2018 on such differential value. I further undertake to pay appropriate interest and penalty on such differential Service Tax liability. The worksheet for the differential service tax liability is as under: (Emphasis supplied) Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Apr 16 - Jun 17 Form 26AS 59,000,721 97,343,987 98,481,851 108,620,798 13,009,481 49,700,935 P&L 59,000,721 97,343,987 100,599,252 108,620,798 130,094,881 49,700,935 Less:- Nomura(SEZ) 18,274,909 22,178,183 27,162,779 13,289,770 - - M&M (Covered under Factories Act) 1,451,550 12,256,135 13,214,896 16,365,002 13,401,793 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that it had discharged its service tax liability in full as per the letter dated 28th March, 2019 and assured Respondent No. 2 that they would pay penalty and interest in a few days. 8. In the year 2019 the Central Government enacted the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Chapter V of the said Act introduced the SVLDRS scheme. The SVLDRS scheme was introduced with the objective of affording those tax payers who had pending issues in respect of any one or more of the indirect tax statutes (more particularly mentioned in Section 122 of the SVLDRS scheme) with an opportunity (and mechanism) to once and for all resolve the same. The object of the SVLDRS scheme was to provide amnesty to those in default and/or who had outstanding dues under the old regime of indirect tax before migrating to the new regime, i.e., the Goods and Service Tax Regime. The benefits under the said scheme inter alia were as follows; i. Tax payers would pay the outstanding tax amounts due and be free from any other consequences in law; ii. Tax payers would get substantial relief in the form of full waiver of interest, penalties and fine. iii. There would be a complete amnesty from prosecution proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the impugned communication Petitioner made separate representations to Respondent No. 4 (on 17th February, 2020), and to Respondent No. 3 (on 4th March, 2020). On 1st June, 2020, Petitioner received a Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent No. 2 recording that Petitioner had charged and collected service tax from its customers (for the period of October, 2014 to June, 2017) but had not paid the same to the Government Exchequer. The amount of service tax mentioned in the said show cause notice was quantified at Rs.1,02,28,973/-. Petitioner thereafter once again made representations to the various Respondents, viz. Respondent No. 3 & 4 (on 19th October, 2020), to the Grievance Cell, Central Board of Indirect Taxation (on 22nd October, 2020) and Respondent No.3 (18th November, 2020). However, these representations were also met with no response from the authorities. It was thus that Petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court and impugned the rejection of Form SVLDRS-1 filed by Petitioner. 12. Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner assailed the impugned communication/rejection of Petitioner's Form SVLDRS-1 principally on the following ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bitrary manner. He further submitted that Respondent No.4 was bound by the Circular dated 27th August, 2019 and thus could not have rejected Form SVLDRS-1 filed by Petitioner. He thus submitted that Petitioner was entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 14. Per contra Mr. Jetly, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents supported the impugned communication and submitted that the same had been correctly issued by Respondent No.4. He submitted that Petitioner was not eligible as per the provisions of Section 125 (e)1, as there was no final quantification and an enquiry/investigation was pending. In support of his contention he first invited our attention to the statement given by Petitioners' director on 28th March, 2019 and then to Form SVLDRS-1 filed by Petitioner and pointed out that the amounts mentioned in both differed. He thus submitted that given this discrepancy, there was no final and conclusive quantification of the amount of service tax. He therefore submitted that Respondent No.4 was absolutely correct and justified in rejecting the said Form holding Petitioner in-eligible as the tax dues were not quantified as on 30th June, 2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or before the 30th day of June, 2019". "What is "quantified" is defined in clause (r) of section 121. It reads thus: "with its cognate expression, means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment". 18. The Circular dated 27th August, 2019 issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC) clarified for all cases pending in adjudication or appeal (at any forum), the relief is to the extent of 70 percent of duty involved if it is Rs.50 lakhs or less and 50 percent if it is more than 50 lakhs. The same relief is available for cases under investigation and audit where the duty involved is quantified and communicated to the party or admitted by him in a statement on or before 30.06.2019. CBITC also issued a clarification by way of answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in which question 1 and 45 and answers thereto further clarified that any person who has cases under investigation and audit where the duty/tax involved has been quantified/and admitted by him via settlement on or before 30th June, 2019 and written communication will include a letter intimating duty/tax demand or duty/tax liability admitted by the person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
