Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Study/2014-15/94
26 July 2014

Whether VCES application was liable to be rejected for non-payment of 50% of tax dues for no fault of assessee?

PJ/Case Study/2013-14/89
 
 

Case Study

 

Prepared by:- CA Neetu Sukhwani &
Monika Tak

 
Introduction: M/s. Suncity Polymers, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as declarant)  had filed an application in the FORM VCES -1 on 31-12-2013 and declared total Service Tax Rs. 20911/- under sub section (1) of section 107 of the Finance Act, 2013 for the period from 2007-08 to December, 2012 under the category of “Transportation of Goods by Road Service”. The FORM VCES-1 pertained to application for Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 which was service tax amnesty scheme introduced for service tax defaulters wherein the scheme provided the service tax defaulters immunity from interest and penalty liability and any other proceeding in future for the said declaration made by them. To avail the benefit of this scheme, there was a mandatory condition prescribed in section 107 (3) wherein the declarant was required to pay 50% of the tax dues declared by him under the VCES application and the proof of such payment of 50% was also required to be submitted to the designated authority before 31.12.2013. However, as the declarant took registration on the last date, the database on the bank’s server could not be updated and the declarant could not make the payment of 50% of the tax dues till 31.12.2013 in its name. Consequently, show cause notice was issued by the designated authority proposing to reject the VCES application filed by the declarant. The outcome of the show cause notice is the subject matter of the present case study.  

M/s Suncity Polymers
[C.NO.V (ST)167/VCES/JDR/2013/16818 DATED 06.03.2014]

 
Relevant legal provisions:

Section 107(3) of Finance Act, 2013
CBEC circular no. 169/4/2014-ST dated 13-5-2013.
CBEC circular no. 137/50/2013-ST dated 30-12-2013.
 
Issue involved:The issue involved before the adjudicating authority in this case was that-
Whether VCES application was liable to be rejected for non-payment of 50% of tax dues for no fault of assessee?

Brief facts:- This order is being passed in pursuance to the Show Cause Notice issued to M/s. Suncity Polymers (Here in after referred to as the VCES declarant) bearing service tax registration no. AAYFS7356MSD001 under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The declarant have filed an application in the FORM VCES -1 on 31-12-2013 and declared total Service Tax Rs. 20911/- under sub section (1) of section 107 of the Finance Act, 2013 for the period from 2007-08 to December, 2012 under the category of ‘Transportation of goods by road service’.
 
As per section 107(3) of the Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013) “The declarant shall, on or before the 31st day of December, 2013, pay not less than fifty percent of tax dues so declared under sub section (1) and submit proof of such payment to the designated authority.” The declarant has not submitted the proof regarding payment of fifty percent of tax dues so declared under sub section (1) to the designated authority.
 
As the declarant could not submit the proof of deposition of 50% of the tax dues declared by them in their VCES application by 31.12.2013, their VCES-1 dated 31-12-2013 for Rs. 20911/- was proposed to be liable for rejection under section 107(3) of the Finance Act, 2013 read with para 16 of the Board’s Circular o. 170/5/2013-ST dated 8-8-2013.
 
Accordingly, the assessee/declarant was called upon to show cause and explain to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jodhpur(Raj.), as to why the VCES-1 application for Rs. 20911/- should not be rejected under section 107(3) of the Finance Act,2013, read with para 16 of the Board’s circular no. 170/5/2013-ST dated 8-8-2013.
 
 
 
Assessee Contentions:The assessee made the following submissions before the adjudicating authority:-
1.          M/S SUNCITY POLYMERS is a unit registered under the Finance Act, 1994 with Registration No. AAYFS7356MSD001. The assessee has filed a VCES application declaring service tax liability of Rs. 20,911/- . They submitted that the show cause notice issued to them is wholly and totally erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
2.            They submit that the only allegation raised in the impugned show cause notice is that they have not submitted proof of evidence of deposition of 50% of the tax dues declared by them in the VCES declaration. In this regard, they submit that they were unable to furnish the proof evidencing the payment of service tax declared by them under VCES due to technical error with the updation of database on server of the bank. They submit that the last date for filing VCES application and deposition of the service tax dues declared therein was 31.12.2013. It is well known that for deposition of service tax dues, service tax registration number is mandatorily required. Consequently, they applied for service tax registration on 31.12.2013 itself. A copy of the Form ST-1 was enclosed. However, as the assessee code was issued by CBEC on 31.12.2013, the details of the same was not mapped on the bank’s database. They submit that although they were only required to deposit 50% of the service tax dues declared in their VCES application amounting to Rs. 10,456/-, they arranged for a demand draft for the whole service tax declared under the VCES application amounting to Rs. 20,911/-. It is also worth noting that in order to facilitate and encourage more and more VCES applications, a Press Statement was also released by the Finance Secretary on VCES wherein it was communicated that the government has also extended banking hours in the designated branches , upto 6 pm on 31-12-2013. In addition, all Commissionerates were advised to accept demand drafts/ pay orders submitted by declarants, under the Receipt Payment Rules. Accordingly, they also intended to avail the benefit of the VCES scheme and submitted the demand draft for the whole amount of Rs. 20,911 having no. as 868960 dated 31.12.2013 to the revenue department. A copy of the demand draft was also enclosed.  However, as stated above, the database of the bank’s server was not updated because assessee code was granted to them by the CBEC on 31.12.2013, the demand draft was realised by the bank but could not be transferred to the government’s account in their name. Thereafter, they applied for refund of their demand draft money in favour of “Suncity Polymers”. A copy of the letter dated 07.01.2014 written to bank for refund of the amount  was also enclosed. Subsequently, the refund of the said amount was granted to them vide Banker’s cheque no. 742342 dated 07.01.2014. Afterwards, they requested the Bank Manager of the SBBJ Bank to issue a letter regarding non processing of the bank draft in government account due to non updation of assessee code on the database of bank’s server. This request was made vide their letter dated 14.01.2014. The Chief Manager of the SBBJ Bank issued the said letter to them on 16.01.2014.
 
3.            They further submitted that they again attempted to deposit the amount of service tax declared under VCES application and issued an account payee cheque of the amount of Rs. 20,911/- in favour of “SBBJ Govt. A/C-Service Tax”. The cheque issued had no. 089359 dated 21.01.2014. A copy of the cheque issued by them was also enclosed. However, they were again intimated that as the assessee code granted to them was still not updated on the bank’s database, the above mentioned cheque was not cleared and credited in the account of government and the above procedure was again repeated. The copy of their letter dated 05.02.2014 seeking refund of their cheque money was also enclosed.
 
4.            They further submit that after following all means of depositing the service tax dues declared in their VCES application, they finally made electronic payment of the said amount of Rs. 20,911/- having challan no. 00085 dated 01.02.2014. A copy of the e-receipt was also enclosed.
 
5.            They submit that the above set of events are clear indicator of the fact that there was no mistake on their part and they had become the victim of technical lapse in deposition of the service tax dues declared in their VCES application. They submit that they constantly tried to deposit their dues declared and the same is evidenced by their above submissions. Moreover, the deposition of whole amount of service tax dues declared in the VCES application when only 50% was required to be deposited by them itself indicates the genuineness and bonafides of the case. As such, the impugned show cause notice proposing to reject their VCES application for the procedural lapse that too not attributable to them is totally erroneous and deserves to be quashed.
 
6.            Without prejudice to the above, they submit that although they are not liable to pay any interest amount for the delay that occurred for no fault on their part. Even then, they submit that instead of rejecting their VCES application, they request you that it may please be communicated to them if they are required to pay any interest on account of delay in deposition of 50% of the tax dues declared by them. Accordingly, the VCES application filed by them should not be rejected and the impugned show cause notice should be set aside.      
 
Reasoning of Judgment:After carefully going through the records of the case, the adjudicating authority stated that as per S.No. 01 of CBEC circular no. 169/4/2014-ST dated 13.5.2013 “Any person who has tax dues to declare can make a declaration in terms of the provisions of VCES. If such person does not already have a service tax registration he will be required to take a registration before making such declaration.” It was further found that assessee/ declarant has applied for service tax registration on 31.12.2014. The declarant vide letter no. PJ/Stax/S/13-14/3810 dated 31.12.2013 informed that the NSDL (Bank site) is not accepting their details and submitted Demand Draft No. 868960 dated 31.12.2013 of Rs. 20119 (whole amount) drawn on bank of India to this office.
As per press release circulated by CBEC vide F.NO. 137/50/2013-Service Tax dated 30.12.2013,  it was communicated that all Commissionerates were advised to accept demand drafts/pay orders submitted by declarant, under the Receipt Payment Rules. The database of the bank’s server was not updated because assessee code was granted on 31.12.2013, and so the demand draft was realized by the bank but could not be transferred to the government’s account. The manager, SBBJ vide letter dated 16.1.2014 also stated that STC AAYFS7356MSD001 was issued on 31.12.2014 and the same was not mapped on bank’s database.
The declarant again attempted to deposit the amount of service tax declared under VCES application and issued an account payee cheque no. 089359 dated 21.1.2014 of Rs. 20,911/- in favour of “SBBJ Govt. A/C - Service Tax”. However, as the assessee code was still not updated on the bank’s database,  the above mentioned cheque was not cleared. The declarant finally made electronic payment of the said amount of Rs. 20,911/- having challan no. 00085 dated 01.02.2014. It was concluded by the adjudicating authority that the declarant constantly tried to deposit dues as evidenced by above submissions and so the adjudicating authority agreed with argument of the declarant that due to some technical mistake on the part of bank, payment got delayed. Accordingly, the VCES application filed by the declarant was accepted and the proceedings initiated vide the impugned show cause notice were dropped.  
 
Decision:SCN was dropped.

Conclusion:- The essence of the case is that although for availing the benefit of the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, it was mandatorily required by the assessee to make payment of 50% of the tax dues by 31.12.2013 and submit the proof of deposition, still, in cases where the said requirement could not be fulfilled on account of technical problems, without any fault of the assessee, the benefit of the scheme should be extended to the declarants. However, it is also worth mentioning here that such relaxation is available only in extremely special cases like the present case. Further, the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ramilaben Bharatbhai Patel Vs UoI [2014-TIOL-678-HC-AHM-ST] that there is no power to relaxing the condition of depositing 50% of the tax dues under VCES application. As such, the relaxation is admissible only in extremely peculiar circumstances where every effort was made to deposit the 50% tax under VCES scheme. 

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