TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration, are as under: "(a) A writ and/or in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents, their men, servants, agents or assigns to forthwith :- (i) Quash, rescind, recall, set aside, cancel and/or revoke the impugned Authorization of Arrest dated January 17, 2014; (ii) Refrain from giving any effect and/or further effect and from taking any steps and/or further steps pursuant to the declaration made by the petitioner under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 and the Finance Act, 2013 ; (iii) Declaration declaring the petitioner to be eligible under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 and the Finance Act, 2013 and to be entitled to the benefits under the Scheme for payment of the balance 50% of the declared tax dues ; (iv) Declaration that the petitioner is entitled to adjustment and/or deduction of its Income Tax Refund from the payments to be made under the Scheme of 2013; (v) Direct the respondent No. 3 herein, to accept the payments to be made by the petitioner as payments towards the balance of the 50% of the tax dues under the Scheme of 2013 ; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be available to the declarant who committed default for compliance of the conditions relating to the deposit of tax dues. On meaningful reading of the provisions contained therein it appears that the immunity as to any benefit, concession or immunity granted under Section 96 shall not be available to the defaulting declarant. The aforesaid provisions have to be read conjointly with section 110 of the said Act. If default is committed under the scheme the consequences provided in the scheme is to be adhered to and the authority cannot travel beyond the boundaries set therein. The benefit under the scheme is provided to a person against whom no enquiry or investigation or other proceeding are initiated. Section 106 of the said Act makes the position clear and, therefore, the person who voluntarily declare his liability to pay service tax, if commits defaults in complying the provisions contained under the said scheme, the authorities are bound to take action under the provisions which provides for the steps to be taken for non-compliance of any of the provisions of the said scheme. To sum up, this Court must conclude that the proviso is applicable only in respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared amount within 31st December, 2013, the authorities had applied before the appropriate forum under section 91 of the Service Tax Act for the offences under section 89(1)(d). Moreover, the learned Single Judge's observation that only section 87 of the Act will apply and no other section will apply, is contrary to the VCES and the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. This apart, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that in default of payment, either full or in part, the balance amount shall be recovered by taking recourse to section 87 of the Finance Act which makes the action taken by the authorities under section 89(1)(d) futile. Referring to the writ petition, a copy of which is annexed to the application for stay, it was submitted that it is evident from the letter dated 24th December, 2013, issued by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, that the company did not pay 50% of the service tax dues and sought for adjustment with its income tax refund which was beyond the purview of the VCES. Thus, the issuance of VCES Form II acknowledging the declaration under VCES Form I, as contended in the writ petition, does not arise. Accordingly, the statements in the writ petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclarant to avail himself of the benefit of the VCES. Since 50% of the tax due was not paid, the writ petitioners did not come under the purview of the VCES. Consequently they are not entitled to the benefits under VCES. The argument of Mr. Bose that the appellant by issuing VCES Form II had accepted the mode and manner of payment of tax due cannot be accepted as nothing is on record from which it can be inferred that the service tax authority had accepted the declaration of the petitioners. Rather the service tax authorities, as noted, by letter dated 26th December, 2013 had rejected the prayer of the writ petitioners for adjustment with the Income Tax dues which has not been challenged in the writ petition. We find that though the learned Single Judge in the judgement impugned had at the outset held that "the facts are not disputed", however, these vital aspects were ignored. Since admittedly 50% of the declared tax dues were not paid by 31st December, 2013, the writ petitioners were not entitled to the benefits under the VCES. Since VCES is a statutory scheme having a fixed time frame, we are of the view that Court by its observations cannot enlarge the time frame as has been do....