Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2993

Whether declaration of VCES can be filed before issuance of order or not?

Case:-ALP CONSULTING LTD. Versus ASSITT. COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE
 
Citation:- 2015 (37) S.T.R. 693 (Kar.)
 
Brief facts:- The petitioner has assailed order dated 31-12-2013, passed by the first respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore (Annexure “A”). Several other prayers are also sought by the petitioner. At the outset, petitioner’s Counsel submitted that the writ petition is restricted to challenge made to order at Annexure “A” and that liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to seek other prayers in an appropriate proceeding. Learned Counsel for the respondents have no objections to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 31-12-2013, is considered in these writ petitions.
The facts germane to the disposal of these writ petitions are that the respondents have initiated Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme - 2013, under the provisions of the Finance Act, 2013 ([hereinafter, referred to as the “Scheme”). A copy of the Scheme is annexed at Annexure “B” to the writ petition. The petitioner filed its application under Section 106 of the said Scheme. The first respondent on considering the said application and after hearing the petitioner’s Counsel has passed the impugned order stating that the application is not being considered having regard to second proviso to Section 106(1) of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2013. That order is assailed in this writ petition.
Theyhave heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
 
Appellant’s contention:- During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is eligible to be considered under the Scheme having regard to sub-section (1) of Section 106 of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2013 in view of the fact that no notice or any order of determination under Section 72 or Section 73 or under Section 73A had been issued or made prior to 1-3-2013. That the proviso did not apply to the case of the petitioner and that under the main provision, sub-section (1) of Section 106, the case of the petitioner had to be considered.
 
Respondent’s contention:- Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order, stated that the second proviso has been rightly invoked by the first respondent and that the impugned order would not call for any interference.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- Theyhave perused the impugned order, which is at Annexure “A”. It is noted from the said order that a discussion has been made as to whether there was any show cause notice or determination that was issued or made under Section 73 or under Section 73A of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that the earlier proceedings was one under Section 73 of the Act and that Section 73A of the Act was not at all invoked and that for the subsequent period, no notice was issued by the Department and hence, under the main provision of sub-section (1) of Section 106 of the Act, the application of the petitioner had to be considered.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents while drawing their attention to the second proviso have contended that the earlier order of determination pursuant to show cause notice dated 19-3-2010 is a bar for consideration of the case of the petitioner under the Scheme. Much stress has been laid on the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 106 in that regard. In order to consider these rival contentions, it would be useful at this stage, to extract the relevant provision :-
“Person who may make declaration of tax dues. -
106.(1) Any person may declare his tax dues in respect of which no notice or an order of determination under Section 72 or Section 73 or Section 73A of the Chapter has been issued or made before the 1st day of March, 2013 :
Provided that any person who has furnished return under Section 70 of the Chapter and disclosed his true liability, but has not paid the disclosed amount of Service Tax or any part thereof, shall not be eligible to make declaration for the period covered by the said return :
Provided further that where a notice or an order of determination has been issued to a person in respect of any period on any issue, no declaration shall be made of his tax dues on the same issue for any subsequent period.
(2) Where a declaration has been made by a person against whom, -
(a)       an inquiry or investigation in respect of a Service Tax not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid has been initiated by way of -
(i)        search of premises under Section 82 of the Chapter; or
(ii)        issuance of summons under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to the Chapter under Section 83 thereof; or
(iii)       requiring production of accounts, documents or other evidence under the Chapter or the rules made thereunder; or
(b)       an audit has been initiated,
            and such inquiry, investigation or audit is pending as on the 1st day of March, 2013, then, the designated authority shall, by an order, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such declaration.”
Sub-section (2) of Section 106 envisages a situation under which there can be a rejection of the declaration made by assessee. But sub-section (1) of Section 106 deals with a situation where the consideration of the application of the assessee has to be made. In this regard, the focus of attention in this case is on the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 106, which states that if there is a notice or order of determination, which has been issued to a person in respect of any period on any issue, no declaration shall be made with regard to tax dues on the same issue for any subsequent period. In this regard, the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner has been that in the show cause notice dated 19-3-2010 culminating in the order dated 23-12-2010, there was no invocation of Section 73A of the Act and therefore the proviso does not apply in the instant case, but the impugned order does not take into consideration that aspect of the matter. There is considerable force in the aforesaid submission inasmuch as the findings given in the order dated 23-12-2010 prima facie was with regard to Section 73 of the Act and not Section 73A. But the matter does not rest here. The submission of the petitioner as to whether Section 73A was invoked in the earlier show cause notice dated 19-3-2010 culminating in the order dated 23-12-2013 is a matter which has to be considered in depth by the first respondent-authority.
The other aspect of the matter is, one of the reasons given in the impugned order was that the earlier show cause notice and the order dated 23-12-2010 was for the period October 2004 to March 2009, part of which period is covered under the Scheme, which was from 1-10-2007 up to 31-12-2012. It was reasoned by the respondent officer that for the period October 2007 to March 2009, there was already an order passed on 23-12-2010 and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to file the application under the Scheme. That reason is not correct in view of the fact that the period for tax dues is 1-10-2007 up to 31-12-2012. That period cannot be related to any period in respect of which an order has been passed by the authority under Section 73 of the Act. If there were any dues between the aforesaid dates, then the eligibility to file the application under the Scheme would arise provided no order was passed prior to the enforcement of the Scheme on any issue. Therefore, linking the period of tax dues under the Scheme with the period in respect of which the order dated 23-12-2012 has been passed in petitioner’s case is not correct as that order was prima facie not in respect of Section 73A of the Act.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the first respondent to reconsider the issue in light of whether the earlier show cause notice dated 19-3-2010 culminating in the order dated 23-12-2010 in respect of which certain issues arose are the very same issues which have arisen for the subsequent period namely, April 2012 to December 2012 in respect of which, the petitioner seeks benefit under the Scheme. Since the parties are represented by their respective Counsel, the petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 30-7-2014, without insisting on any separate notice from that authority. It is needless to observe that the first respondent on hearing the petitioner’s authorised representative shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner under the Scheme in light of the observations made supra and in accordance with law and in an expeditious manner and pass a speaking order.
 
Decision:- Petitions allowed.
 
Comment:- The analogy of the case is that assessee could not be denied benefit of availment of the scheme. If there were any dues between dates covered by Scheme, then the eligibility to file the application under the Scheme would arise provided no order was passed prior to the enforcement of the Scheme on any issue. Linking of period of tax dues under Scheme with period in respect of which earlier show cause notice was issued, was wrong. Application for availment of scheme could not be dismissed without considering this plea of assessee.
 
Prepared by:- Monika Tak
 
 
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com