9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... close the legacy dispute accepting the SVLDRS declaration filed by the petitioner. W.P.No.16467 of 2021 is in the nature of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the File C.No.GEXCOM/ADJN/ST/JC/182/2020-CH.N.ADJN of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned order-in-original No.22/2021- CH.N(ADC) dated 21.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice and consequently give a direction, directing the first respondent to drop the proceedings and pass orders. 2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of interior designing and are offering design and consultancy services, works contract services, installation erection of pool and irrigation equipment and annual maintenance for gardens and swimming pools and have their main office at Chennai. 2.1. During the period from from 2014-15 to Jun 2017, petitioner had rendered the above stated services and collected service tax on those services. 2.2. Though tax was periodically paid upto March 2016, due to sudden ill-health and complications suffered by the proprietor coupled with the consequent financial issues faced by petitioner, tax was not remitted for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019" held that on a cumulative/conjoint reading of clauses (e) and (f) to Section 125(1) of the Act it would be evident that the embargo filing a declaration on the premise that the declarant has been subjected to an enquiry on investigation would only relate to an enquiry on investigation which has been initiated on or before 30.06.2019. 6. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner had submitted its application subsequent to the initiation of the investigation and thus ought to have disclosed the same and failure to disclose would prove fatal to the validity of the declaration itself and thus the impugned order rejecting the application is justified. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. In the present case, admittedly, the investigation was initiated by a issuance of a summon only on 18.09.2019 and thus the rejection/withdrawal of the SVLDRS declaration dated 29.10.2020, is unsustainable. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to following portion of the order in W.P.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore 30-6-2019 or those persons who have been issued a show cause notice under an indirect tax enactment and final hearing had taken place on or before 30-6-2019 or those persons who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation had not been quantified on or before 30-6-2019 would not be eligible to make a declaration. Clause (e) is just above clause (1) which deals with voluntary disclosure. As we have seen, clause (e) says that a person who has been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit had not been quantified on or before 30-6-2019 would not be eligible to make a declaration. Immediately following clause (e) is clause (1) which says that a person making a voluntary declaration after being subjected to any enquiry or investigation or audit would not be eligible to make a declaration. If clauses (e) and (f) are to be read in a harmonious manner then logically it follows that the enquiry or investigation or audit referred to in clause (1)(1) would necessarily have to be initiated on or before 30-6-2019. ..... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f available' under the Scheme clauses (a) & (d) refers to the cut-off date being '30.06.2019' and (vi) Section 125 refers to '30.06.2019' in clauses (a) (c) and (e) thereof. 11. Thus, the Scheme has adopted, in several instances, the 30th of June 2019 as a watershed for various purposes, including determination of tax dues/arrears. 12. The argument of the respondent is that had it been the intention of legislature that 30.06.2019 be adopted for the purposes of Section 125(f), it would have so stipulated in that clause itself. This is certainly a possible argument. In cases involving the interpretation of a beneficial scheme/exemption notification, the accepted Rule is that the scheme be interpreted strictly in line with the avowed and stated intention thereof. Seen in the light, clause 125(f) of the scheme must be read as is, without the addition of the date, 30.06.2019. However, this is not to be, as the interpretation of the Goods and Services Tax Department is itself contrary to that position. 13. Written instructions from the office of the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Belapur in F.No.V/HLC/Bel- GST/MISC/2020-21 dated 22.05.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
