TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be brought under the purview of the Scheme and that would not have never been the intention of the legislature. Therefore, it is very clear that the amount of service tax liability has to be quantified in agreement with the respondents to enable the petitioner to come under the purview of the Scheme - Having not quantified in accordance with the Scheme, the question of accepting the petitioner's letter dated 03.09.2018 for the purpose of the Scheme will not arise and that is the reason as to why the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 has been passed rejecting the petitioner's application. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of VITALRAO JAYAPRAKASH VERSUS THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE UNDER THE SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, 2019, THE COMMISSIONER, THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI [ 2022 (3) TMI 454 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , had an occasion to decide the issue as to when the Scheme can be applied. In paragraph no.12 of the said judgment, it has been made clear that unless and until the tax liability is quantified, the question of availing the benefits of the Scheme will not arise. In the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has primarily challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and on the ground that the impugned order is a cryptic and non-speaking order. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the contentions of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not eligible to come under the Scheme and further, only based on the particulars furnished by the petitioner through an automated generated system, the petitioner's application has been rightly rejected. Further, according to the respondents, there is no necessity for them to give reasons for rejecting the petitioner's application. Further, according to the respondents, unless and until the service tax liability is quantified, the question of entertaining the application submitted by the petitioner under the Scheme will not arise. Since the service tax liability has not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019, which is the deadline fixed under the Scheme, the first respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner's application under the impugned order. 4. Heard Mr.S.Sathyanarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein he has indicated an amount of duty as payable, but has not paid it; (g) who have filed an application in the Settlement Commission for settlement of a case; (h) persons seeking to make declarations with respect to excisable goods set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. (2) A declaration under sub-section (1)shall be made in such electronic form as may be prescribed. 9. As seen from Section 125 of the Scheme, it is clear that the settlement amount has to be quantified on or before 30.06.2019. Any person making voluntary disclosure can avail the benefit of the Scheme, only if the said voluntary disclosure is made for getting the benefit under the Scheme. The settlement amount offered by the assessee must be in accordance with the Scheme. Any voluntary disclosure cannot be claimed that the amount disclosed therein is the quantified amount. If that be so, then every voluntary disclosure by any assessee shall be eligible for availing the benefits of the Scheme. The intention of the legislature would never have been to accept such a contention, as raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. 10. In the case on hand, the petitioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e scheme. The appellant, in the letter dated 13.06.2019, did not claim the benefits of the scheme, but only requested the respondents to quantify the tax liability payable by him. The letter dated 13.06.2019 is self-explanatory and it reads as under:- In respect of undergoing investigation relating to the non-payment of service tax, the documents, as mentioned below is submitted herewith for quantification of service tax liability. 12. The Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment has considered the very same issue, which is the subject matter of consideration in this writ petition, by giving a ruling that it is not enough, if the assessee has submitted a letter to the department for the purpose of quantification of the service tax liability before the date of closure of the Scheme, and only when the tax liability has been quantified as per the Scheme before the closure of the Scheme, the assessee is eligible to avail the benefit of the Scheme. 13. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Karan Singh vs. Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of the amount stated therein, he admits the liability. It, however, cannot mean that the amount stood quantified before the relevant cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2019. In the category of cases, where, investigation or audit was continuing as on the introduction of SVLDRS, the benefit of the scheme would be available to only such cases, where, during investigation, the department quantifies the amount and not vice versa. 16. In the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court also, the petitioner therein had approached the tax authorities for settlement, but, did no make a voluntary disclosure as required under the Scheme. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rejected the contention of the assessee that the settlement letter given by the assessee will amount to voluntary disclosure and quantification, as required under the Scheme. 17. This Court is agreement with the view taken by the Division bench of the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid decision. The petitioner herein is similarly placed and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's application under the Scheme on the ground that they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
