Service tax amnesty bar applies where the same issue was already covered by earlier notice and adjudication.

The Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 permits disclosure of tax dues only where the second proviso to section 106(1) is not attracted. The proviso bars a declaration when the same issue has already been covered by an earlier notice or determination, even if the declaration relates to a later period. On the facts described, the earlier show cause notice and the declaration both concerned short-payment of service tax on GTA, Maintenance & Repair Service and BAS, so the statutory embargo applied. The rejection was based on the section 106(1) bar, not on suppression under section 111. The declaration was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second proviso to section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 barred a declaration under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 for a subsequent period when an earlier show cause notice had already been issued and adjudicated on the same issue.

Analysis: The scheme was an amnesty measure permitting a defaulting assessee to declare tax dues and obtain immunity on payment within the prescribed time. The second proviso to section 106(1) was held to focus on identity of issue and not merely on overlap of period. If an earlier notice or determination had been issued on the same issue, a declaration could not be made for any subsequent period on that same issue. On the admitted facts, the earlier notice and the declaration both concerned short-payment of service tax on GTA, Maintenance & Repair Service and BAS. The cited Delhi High Court decision was found inapplicable because the present facts squarely attracted the embargo in the second proviso. The rejection was not based on suppression under section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013, but on the statutory bar under section 106(1).

Conclusion: The authorities correctly applied the second proviso to section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013, and the declaration was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the scheme did not permit a declaration for a subsequent period on an issue already covered by an earlier notice and adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013, the bar in the second proviso to section 106(1) operates where the same issue has already been the subject of an earlier notice or determination, even if the declaration relates to a subsequent period.

---