TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 application made by them seeking the benefit of Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013. By the judgment under appeal, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition relegating the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. It is this judgment, which is challenged before us. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the appellant is a Co-operative Society incorporated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, an entity like the appellant engaged in providing services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances shall pay for every month an amount equal to 50% of the CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services in that month. Ext. P1 series are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss verification of the VCES declaration with the ST3 returns for the period April 2011 to December 2012, it is noticed that the Assessee has availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 2555143/- on input services and declared the same in the ST-3 Returns filed, but shown an amount of Rs. 1398200/- as CENVAT Credit availed, in the Annexure Attached to VCES Declaration for the said period. It means the declarant has already disclosed the true Tax liability in the ST-3 returns filed under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period covered by the said returns for which the declaration under the VCE scheme has been filed. It is also noticed that the amount of dues declared in the VCES-1 is not tallying with the amount of credit availed. Therefore, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Return enclosed for your ready reference). Under these circumstances, our declaration under VCES 2013 satisfies all the conditions stipulated therein and we should be given the amnesty as provided in the scheme. As regarding the cross verification of the VCES Declaration with the ST3 Returns for the said period, we request you to grant us some more time to reconcile the same." A reading of the above reply furnished by the appellant shows that while it had explained the alleged violation of Rule 6(3B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant sought more time to reconcile the inconsistency between the declaration and ST-3 returns. After considering the reply and without affording the appellant further time for reconciliation, t....