2019 (4) TMI 1353 - HC - Service Tax

Court quashes Service Tax notice under Voluntary Compliance Scheme, cites abuse of power

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice for outstanding Service Tax dues and the rejection of the declaration under the Service Tax ... Recovery of service tax dues of the assessee from the bank a/c - dafaulter - VCES application was rejected on grounds that two of the deposits made by the petitioner towards his arrears of tax dues was not covered under the Scheme and thus his deposits were not in tune with the declaration so made by him - HELD THAT:- Despite there being no dispute on the deposit towards the arrears of taxes by the petitioner, yet under the cover of Clause 110 of ‘the VCES, 2013’ that the respondent authorities in the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Department has proceeded to invoke the provision of Section 87 of Finance Act, 1994 to recover a sum of ₹ 34,32,226/- from the petitioner, inter alia, on grounds that the petitioner had failed to pay taxes in conformity of the declaration. We would find it difficult to trace a single instance of an abuse of statutory power which is present in the present case because in our opinion even if under the misplaced understanding of the Assistant Commissioner, two deposits made by the petitioner did not qualify under the Scheme, it was nevertheless a tax deposit and to that extent the petitioner could not be held a defaulter for being proceeded under the provisions of Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Quashing of notice issued under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 for outstanding Service Tax dues.2. Rejection of declaration under Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013.3. Interpretation of the Scheme provisions regarding tax dues and deposits made by the petitioner.4. Consideration of alternative remedy and abuse of statutory power by the authorities.Issue 1: Quashing of Notice under Section 87:The petitioner sought a writ to quash a notice for outstanding Service Tax dues issued under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice directed the petitioner's bank to pay the dues, leading to a remittance of Rs. 34,32,226. The High Court overruled the preliminary objection of an alternative remedy raised by the respondent, emphasizing that the scheme in question did not provide for such a remedy. The Court proceeded to analyze the arguments presented by both parties regarding the impugned orders.Issue 2: Rejection of Declaration under VCES, 2013:The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of their declaration under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013. The rejection was based on the grounds that two deposits made by the petitioner towards tax arrears were not covered under the Scheme. The Court found that the rejection order failed on reasons and misinterpreted the Scheme's stipulations. The Court referred to judgments by the Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, which rejected similar objections raised by the authorities in other cases.Issue 3: Interpretation of Scheme Provisions:The Court delved into the interpretation of the Scheme provisions regarding tax dues and deposits made by the petitioner. The Scheme allowed taxpayers to make declarations and payments towards tax arrears. The dispute arose from deposits made by the petitioner after the Scheme's inception but related to arrears dues. The Court emphasized that the Scheme retroactively accounted for arrears dues until a specified date and did not exclude deposits made after that date. The Court found that the rejection order reflected a misappreciation of the Scheme's provisions.Issue 4: Alternative Remedy and Abuse of Statutory Power:The Court highlighted an abuse of statutory power in the proceedings. Despite the petitioner's deposits not qualifying under the Scheme, they were still deposits towards tax arrears and should not disqualify the petitioner from the declaration made. The authorities invoked Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 to recover the amount from the petitioner, which the Court deemed inappropriate. The Court quashed the rejection order and the attachment notice, directing the respondents to remit the recovered amount to the petitioner within a specified period.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and directing the respondents to remit the recovered amount to the petitioner, emphasizing the misinterpretation of the Scheme's provisions and the abuse of statutory power in the proceedings.