TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal emphasizes notice service for VCES eligibility, stresses statutory compliance</h1> <h3>Shri B.R. Ajit (Managing Director) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Commissionerate, Cochin</h3> Shri B.R. Ajit (Managing Director) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Commissionerate, Cochin - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 628 (Tri. - ... Issues:Rejection of declaration under VCES-I form - Interpretation of Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 - Service of notice versus issuance of notice.Analysis:Issue 1: Rejection of Declaration under VCES-I FormThe appellant, a provider of Architect Services, filed a declaration under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) for tax dues amounting to Rs. 47,84,597 for the period December 2009 to November 2012. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner issued a Show Cause Notice seeking rejection of the declaration due to a previous notice demanding service tax. The appellant argued that as the earlier notice was not served before a specific date, disqualification under Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 should not apply. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Section 106(1) and the timing of notice issuance versus service to determine the eligibility of the appellant for VCES benefits.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 outlines the conditions for declaring tax dues under VCES. The key contention revolved around whether the date of issuance or service of a Show Cause Notice should be considered for determining eligibility under VCES. The appellant argued that as the notice was not served before the relevant date, disqualification should not apply. The Tribunal examined the language of the Act and previous legal precedents to interpret the requirement of notice service for invoking Section 106(1).Issue 3: Service of Notice versus Issuance of NoticeThe Tribunal deliberated on the distinction between the issuance and service of a notice in the context of Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013. It noted that the Act mandates the service of notices within specified time frames for them to be considered valid. Legal precedents were cited to emphasize that mere issuance of a notice does not equate to service, and the crucial factor is the recipient's knowledge of the notice. The Tribunal concluded that as the Show Cause Notice was not served before the relevant date, the appellant should not be disqualified from availing VCES benefits, as per the provisions of the Act.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order rejecting the VCES-I declaration filed by the appellant, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs. The judgment clarified the importance of notice service in determining eligibility under VCES and highlighted the necessity for strict adherence to statutory requirements for disqualification under the Act.
TaxTMI 