TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to see whether the amount of duty involved has been quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. The answer to this is, amount of duty has been quantified. In the reconciliation statement submitted, copy whereof is at Annexure-D to the Petition, the amount of duty payable has been quantified as Rs.97,82,935/-. In the statement of Petitioner No.2, recorded on 26 th June, 2019, copy whereof is at Exh.-C to the Petition, in answer to question No.6, an amount of Rs.97,82,935/- (48,00,700+49,82,235) has been admitted. Out of this, Rs.48,00,700/- has been paid by Petitioner and what was remaining was only Rs.48,82,235/-. Even in the impugned order, Respondents have in paragraph No.2 stated as per the DGGI report amount quantified before 30.06.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharged. As per the reconciliation statement, Petitioner No.1 admitted to short payment of service tax amounting to Rs.97,82,935/- and deposited an amount of Rs.48,00,700/- during the course of proceedings. Subsequently on 26 th June, 2019, Respondent No.4 recorded the statement of Petitioner No.2. In the statement recorded, Petitioner has admitted a liability of Rs.97,82,935/-. 3. When the SVLDRS scheme was introduced, Petitioner decided to take advantage of the same and filed a declaration on 18th November, 2019. On 5th December, 2019 Petitioner received a show cause notice from Respondent No.4 raising a demand of Rs.2,35,31,795/-. On 17th December, 2019 Respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice in Form SVLDRS-2 which accepted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion No.6, an amount of Rs.97,82,935/- (48,00,700+49,82,235) has been admitted. Out of this, Rs.48,00,700/- has been paid by Petitioner and what was remaining was only Rs.48,82,235/-. Even in the impugned order, Respondents have in paragraph No.2 stated as per the DGGI report amount quantified before 30.06.2019 was Rs.97,82,935/- . Therefore before 30 th June, 2019 the amount of duty involved has been quantified. 5. Reliance placed by Respondents on FAQ No.53 also would not help Respondents in view of what is stated in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 in B. Chopda Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 468 (Bom.) and it reads as under; 9. We have to now examine whether these twin conditions have been met. To answ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
