TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Further, no enquiry was pending against the appellant as on the date of filing of the declaration under the scheme. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.51217 of 2022 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO.50296/2023 - Dated:- 2-3-2023 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Yash Dhadda, Chartered Accountant for the appellant. Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The appellant, Shri Tara Chand Verma was engaged in providing services as Direct Selling Agent of M/s. Safe Secure Online Marketing Private Limited during April, 2014 to June, 2017. The gross turnover during the said period were Rs.41,45,479/-, on which no service tax was paid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l under SVLDR Scheme, for which discharge certificate has been issued for full and final settlement of tax dues by the Designated Committee. It was also observed that the appellant have discharged their tax liability under Sabka Vishwas Scheme availing the benefit of threshold limit (SSI limit) as per Notification No.30/2012-ST, which was found to be in order. Accordingly, the Asstt. Commissioner held that the appellant have rightly declared the service tax payable under the SVLDR Scheme and accordingly, the show cause notice was dropped observing no further action is warranted. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that as DGGSTI, GRU, Ghaziabad had issued summons to the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of one year of discharge certificate, it shall be presumed as if the declaration was never made and the proceedings under the applicable indirect tax shall be instituted. 5. Ld. Commissioner allowed the appeal of the Revenue observing that the intention of the assessee was to suppress the facts that the DGGSTI, GRU, Ghaziabad have issued summons before they applied for settlement under SVLDR Scheme. Further, observed that the matter was under investigation and the quantification of duty /tax was not done by 30.06.2019. Hence, the appellant/assessee was not eligible for avaidling the benefit of SVLDR Scheme. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, urges that admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reading of the query and the answer given thereto would make it clear that if an inquiry or investigation or audit was initiated on or before 30.06.2019 then such a person would not be eligible to make a declaration under the voluntary disclosure category. Logical corollary to this would be that an inquiry or investigation or audit post 30.06.2019 would not act as a bar to filing of declaration under the voluntary disclosure category. 28. If we read the scheme as a whole more particularly in the context of an inquiry or investigation or audit, then we find that the date 30.06.2019 is quite significant. We have already noticed the definition of enquiry or investigation as per Section 121(m). Coming to Section 123 of the Finance (No.2), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
