TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e detailed reply letter dated 06.07.2015 filed by the petitioner and issue VCES Form No.3. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the Sole Proprietor of M/s.VMBK Promoters having registered with the Service Tax Commissionerate. During the course of investigation conducted in the premises of the Company, all the properties at Mahalingapuram, Chennai by the Officers of Director General of Customs, Excise Intelligence Wing, it was found that the petitioner had provided services as Marketing Agent to M/s.VIP Housing and Properties and M/s.VIP City for selling residential plots, flats and villas on commission basis, but failed to collect Service Tax on the consideration received as commission. The petitioner was served with a summon dated 03.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be 73B of the Chapter for the period of delay starting from 01.07.2014. Once the entire tax is paid, the declarant gets immunity from penalty and interest as per Section 108. As per Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013, where the Commissioner of Central Excise has reasons to believe that the declaration made by a declarant under this Scheme is substantially false, he may, for the reasons recorded in writing, serve notice on the declarant in respect of such declaration requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the tax due not paid or short paid. According to the petitioner, the notice issued by the 2nd respondent without recording of reasons of the Commissioner of Central Excise is invalid in law. Further, the petitioner contended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 1st respondent termed the declaration filed by the petitioner as substantially false and authorized issue of show cause notice under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013. In view of the monetory limit for the purpose of adjudication vide Circular dated 23.08.2007 as modified by Circular dated 11.03.2008 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, proceedings initiated against the petitioner in show cause notice dated 09.12.2014 issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 culminated in the order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent. 4. Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent has not given personal hearing to the petitioner and thereby violated the principles of na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide calculation error. The amount involved was very small. He secondly contended that under Section 110, the tax short-paid could be recovered with interest, but the declaration itself cannot be rejected. 6. To our mind, neither of the two contentions can be accepted. The scheme makes no difference between tax dues which are short-paid due to bona fide error and one which flows from deliberate inaction. There is no power for waiving or relaxing the condition of depositing 50% tax dues flowing from Section 107. It would not be possible for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction to direct the authority, in plain terms, which the statutory provision does not permit. 7. Coming to the second contention, the scheme envisages depositing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be taken for non-compliance of any provisions of the said Scheme. Further, the Calcutta High Court held that the proviso is applicable only in respect of sub-section (4) of Section 107 and cannot be stretched to sub-section (3) of Section 107 and the authorities can take recourse under Section 110 of the said Act, in the event, any default is committed under the said Scheme. (iii) 2014 (35) S.T.R. 65 (P & H) [Barnala Builders & Property Consultants Vs. Dy. C.C.E & S.T., Dera Bassi] wherein the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax would necessarily be appealable under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, the Division Bench he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also clear that pursuant to the summons dated 03.09.2013 and 12.11.2013 issued by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner appeared before them on 18.11.2013 and furnished the copies of the Income Tax returns. The petitioner had filed his reply dated 06.07.2015 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent also afforded personal hearing on 21.07.2015, 06.08.2015 and 12.08.2015. The petitioner was represented by his counsel before the 2nd respondent on 12.08.2015 and submitted that no penalty be imposed in their case since they have paid the entire Service Tax dues prior to issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, it is clear that the 2nd respondent has given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and he was also represented ....