2021 (12) TMI 184 - HC - Service Tax

Court rules in favor of petitioner on service tax dispute, allowing deductions for pre-notice deposits.

Schlumberger Solutions Private Limited Versus Commissioner Central GST and others

Schlumberger Solutions Private Limited Versus Commissioner Central GST and others - 2022 (60) G. S. T. L. 41 (P & H) Issues:1. Computation of amount payable under amnesty scheme by Designated Committee.2. Entitlement of petitioner for deduction of deposits made prior to show cause notice.3. Interpretation of Section 124 of Finance Act, 2019 regarding deduction of amounts paid under different heads.Analysis:1. The petitioner, an assessee for service tax, was audited for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17. Objections were raised regarding availing cenvat credit on trading of goods, leading to payments of substantial amounts towards service tax, interest, and penalty. A show cause notice sought further recovery, but an amnesty scheme was introduced allowing settlement of disputes. The Designated Committee disagreed with petitioner's computation, leading to the petitioner challenging it via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner argued for deduction of deposits made prior to the show cause notice issuance, relying on Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2019. The petitioner contended that the deposited amount falls under 'pre-deposit' and should be deducted while calculating the amount payable. However, the respondents argued against such deduction, emphasizing that payments made towards duty, interest, and penalty are distinct and cannot be adjusted against each other. The critical question was whether the petitioner could claim credit for amounts deposited under interest and penalty heads.3. Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2019 provides for relief calculation under the scheme, subject to deductions of amounts paid during enquiry, investigation, or audit. The provision does not differentiate between payments made under various heads, mandating deduction of any amount paid during such proceedings. The Designated Committee's view that payments under interest and penalty heads cannot be deducted was deemed unsustainable. The petitioner's deposits, regardless of the head, were to be considered for deduction. The judgment allowed the petition, quashing the Designated Committee's comments, directing a reconsideration of the claim, and specifying the petitioner's payment obligations.This detailed analysis covers the computation under the amnesty scheme, the entitlement of the petitioner for deduction of deposits, and the interpretation of Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2019 regarding deductions of amounts paid under different heads.