VCES declarations cannot be reopened for mere reclassification without proof of substantial misdeclaration or suppression.

VCES declarations could not be reopened absent substantial misdeclaration, and a mere change in classification was insufficient. The Revenue relied on VAT returns describing the activity as works contract service and sought to reclassify the declared service from construction of complex service, but the declared consideration matched the amount disclosed and no contract or other document showed suppression of service tax liability. Because the scheme was meant to encourage voluntary compliance, disturbance of a declaration required clear evidence of non-disclosure. On these facts, denial of abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST and the demand based on reclassification were unjustified and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the VCES declaration could be reopened on the ground of substantial misdeclaration by reclassifying the declared service from construction of complex service to works contract service and by denying abatement under Notification No. 26/2012-ST.

Analysis: The declared consideration was not shown to be different from the amount disclosed by the appellant. The Revenue's case rested only on a different view of classification based on VAT returns describing the activity as works contract service. The scheme was intended to encourage voluntary compliance, and declarations under it could be disturbed only where substantial misdeclaration was established. No contract or other document was brought on record to show suppression or non-disclosure of the service tax liability for the disputed period. A mere difference in classification, especially where the legal definitions under VAT law and the Finance Act, 1994 may differ, was insufficient to establish substantial misdeclaration.

Conclusion: The reopening of the VCES declaration and the denial of abatement were unjustified, and the demand based on reclassification could not be sustained.

---