2015 (1) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... per Ext. P2, followed by further coercive proceedings vide Exts. P3/P3(a) notices issued under Section 87(b)(i) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The case of the petitioner in nut shell is that, the petitioner is engaged in the business of 'auxiliary service', 'cleaning service', 'manpower supply service' and 'security service' etc., having started business as early as in the year 2004 and was a regular taxpayer. In the year 2013, the Central Government promulgated a Scheme by name' Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme' [VCES]. As per the Scheme, the petitioner has to file a declaration' in Form VCES-1, under Section 107(1) of Chapter V of the Finance Act 2013 and accordingly, the petitioner filed the declaration for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t come within the purview of the Scheme. Referring to the payments effected by the petitioner at different points of time, as given in paragraph 6, it is stated that the petitioner has not satisfied the requisite extent of 50% as well and hence it is not liable to be considered, even otherwise. The disputed payment of Rs. 10 lakhs is stated as in respect of other account, which according to the respondents is not liable to be reckoned for the purpose of statutory deposit of 50%. The said deposit is stated as against the 'interest' portion, and reliance is sought to be placed on Exts. R1(d) to R1(f) in this regard. It is further pointed out that, the Scheme does not envisage filing of any appeal and that Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(3A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellate authority is having the power to condone the delay, if any for sufficient reasons. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision rendered by the Punjab Haryana High Court in M/s. Barnala Builders & Property Consultants v. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax [W.P.(C) No. 26929 of 2013 = 2014 (35) S.T.R. 65 (P & H)] to contend that the appeal is maintainable. The learned standing counsel for the respondents points out that the said verdict has already been subjected to challenge by filing SLP before the Apex Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that, having rejected t....