TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by petitioner, Pratibha Jha cannot be accepted by this Court at this stage seeking refund of the service tax amount deposited by her under the Scheme, due to the fact that the documents which have been brought on record such as registration before the Service Tax Department of the year 2013, her statement before the adjudicating authorities as well as the orders passed on her application under the Scheme of 2019 clearly demonstrates that she is the proprietor of M/s. Creative Media. The entire emphasis on part of petitioner is on the fact that her husband played mischief by portraying her as the proprietor of M/s. Creative Media not only before the taxing authorities but also before the Bank, and thus, any recovery to be made by the Department should be made from Ashok Jha, her husband. This Court finds that it is a dispute inter se between the petitioner and her husband as to the real ownership of M/s. Creative Media and the liability of payment of service tax. From the documents which have been placed before the Court, it is clear that petitioner herself had got registered with the Tax Department in the year 2013 as the proprietor of M/s. Creative Media. In her tax retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to petitioner, it was in the year 2014 that her husband had uploaded the information on the website of the Service Tax Department which led to initiation of proceedings against her. She contended that the notice issued by Central Excise and Service Tax Department was replied by her and the orders dated 01.12.2015 and 27.08.2015 passed by respondents holding her liable for payment of service tax was only to harass her and was done at the instigation of her husband. 3. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Department submitted that Creative Media is a proprietorship concern and was registered with the Central Board of Excise and Customs showing the PAN number of the petitioner as an advertising service agency on 22.05.2013. In a statement made before the adjudicating authority on 09.05.2013, petitioner herself had stated that Creative Media is a proprietorship concern owned by her in her name. The officers of Anti- Evasion, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ghaziabad visited the premises on 09.05.2013 and on investigation found that for the period April, 2009 to March, 2014, no service tax was paid for the services provided. Rs.26,79,766/- was the outstanding servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited settlement amount of Rs.14,76,806/- against an outstanding service tax against her name of Rs.33,18,514/-. Thus, she got a tax relief of Rs.18,41,708/-. 9. SVLDRS-2019 Scheme was voluntarily scheme introduced by Government of India and there was no compulsion of any person or party to opt for Scheme. Section 129 and 130 of the SVLDRS-2019 enacted in Parliament vide Chapter V of Finance Act (No. II) Act, 2019 clearly provides that Scheme shall be conclusive as to the matter and time period stated therein. Sections 129 and 130 are of great importance and are extracted hereasunder:- 129. (1) Every discharge certificate issued under section 126 with respect to the amount payable under this Scheme shall be conclusive as to the matter and time period stated therein, and- (a) the declarant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest, or penalty with respect to the matter and time period covered in the declaration; (b) the declarant shall not be liable to be prosecuted under the indirect tax enactment with respect to the matter and time period covered in the declaration; (c) no matter and time period covered by such declaration shall be reopened in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt deposited by her under the Scheme, due to the fact that the documents which have been brought on record such as registration before the Service Tax Department of the year 2013, her statement before the adjudicating authorities as well as the orders passed on her application under the Scheme of 2019 clearly demonstrates that she is the proprietor of M/s. Creative Media. 11. The Income Tax Return filed by her for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 also reveals her business income from M/s. Creative Media. The argument raised that her husband had forged all the documents and it is a proprietorship created by her husband in the year 2005 and she is not the proprietor of the firm cannot be dealt in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, Ashok Jha is not party in the present writ petition. It was only on the proceedings initiated by the Central Excise and Service Tax Department that the adjudication order was passed after service of notice and thereafter appeal was decided. The petitioner instead of preferring further action being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 27.10.2019 instead opted to go for the compounding Scheme in the name of SVLDRS-2019 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
