TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case are as under: 1.1. The appellant provides Architect Services and is registered with the Jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities. In respect of the period under dispute, the appellant opted for the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) and filed declaration in the prescribed VCES-I form under Section 1107(1), chapter V of the Finance Act 2013, in respect of Tax dues of Rs. 47,84,597/- for the period December 2009 to November 2012. The appellant had also deposited 50% of the admitted tax liability before 31.12.2013 as required under the Scheme. 1.2 After receipt of the said declaration, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Service tax issued the Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.2013, seeking rejection of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Shri V. Unnikrishnan, the Ld. Consultant for the appellant submitted that the show cause notice dated 22.02.2013 was not served to the appellant before 01.03.2013, and thus, the disqualification in terms of the main provision as well as the second proviso to Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 cannot be applied. The ld. Consultant further submitted that the show cause notice dated 22.02.2013 having been issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, which mandated that the notice has to be "served" on the person for recovery of the service tax not levied or paid, non-service of such notice within the stipulated time frame, cannot take away the substantive right of the appellant to avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication was rejected on the basis of the second proviso to section 106(1), that "where a notice or an order of determination has been issued to a person in respect of any period on any issue, no declaration shall be made of his tax dues on the same issue for any subsequent period". The appellant had contended that even though the show cause notice was issued to him on 22.02.2013, the same was not served on him before 1.03.2013 and therefore do not satisfy the condition in the second proviso to section 106(1), as the word, 'issued' has to be construed as 'served' in a contextual sense." 6. The Finance Minister had announced a Voluntary Compliance Encouragement scheme, 2013 (VCES) in his budget speech and has incorporated the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the person before 01.03.2013. 8. It is an admitted fact on record that the Show Cause Notice No. 28/2013 ST dated 22.02.2013 issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 has not been received by the appellant before 01.03.2013, Section 73 of the Act mandates that in cases, where any service tax has not been levied or paid, the Central Excise Officer may, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the parson chargeable with service tax which has not been levied or paid. 9. The law contained in Section 73 of the Act, makes it abundantly clear that the Show Cause Notice has to be served on the person concerned an mere 'issuance' of the same is not enough. In other words, if the Show Cause Notice was issued and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the notice should be the date of giving of notice as contemplated in Section 110(2) of the Act. While arriving at such conclusion, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court vide paragraphs 24 and 25 in the said judgment have held as follows:- "24. It is well-settled that in considering the true meaning of words or expressions used by the legislature the Court must have regard to the aim, object and scope of the Statute to be read in its entirety. (Supreme court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 1241 at 1265). 25. The object in setting a time-limit in Section 110(2) was to expedite proceedings so as not harass a citizen whose goods may have been wrongfully seized. The object has been stated b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the knowledge of the person against whom it is 'issued' but not 'served'. In essence, if law prohibits a person with a particular disqualification from filing a declaration, then such disqualification should be established to be within the knowledge of the concerned person. To impute such knowledge, mere issuance of notice is not sufficient. The notice has to be served as provided under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the words 'issued to a person' used in section 106, in my opinion, have to be construed as 'served to a person'. 13. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that since the Show Cause Notice No. 28/213-ST dated 22.02.2013 issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 ha....