TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 23rd March, 2020 passed by the Respondents in this regard. Further, the Petitioner seeks consequential relief of directing the Respondents to accept the declaration and issue a discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS-4 for the amount in question. FACTS IN BRIEF: 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of providing staffing services and solutions which includes general staffing, recruitment and supply of manpower etc. It was previously registered under the Finance Act, 1994 and was allotted a Service Tax registration. With Central Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'GST Act') coming into force, the Petitioner migrated under the said Act and is now allotted a GST registration. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-South (now known as Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate) initiated investigation against it. In connection therewith, pursuant to summons dated 26th July, 2018, Sh. Shaji Kumar, Director of Petitioner company, appeared before the authorities and tendered his statement acknowledging that the Petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the aim to reduce the litigation pending before various forums under the erstwhile regime. The provisions of the said Scheme were provided in Chapter V of the Finance (No.2) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Finance Act'). On 21st August, 2019, vide Notification No. 05/2019 Central Excise-NT, the SVLDRS Rules were notified. In order to avail the benefit of this Scheme, Petitioner filed a declaration on the online portal, under Form SVLDRS-1 dated 21st November, 2019, premised on the understanding that the Service Tax amount stood quantified prior to the 'relevant date' i.e. 30th June, 2019. However, on 10th December, 2019, the designated committee for Delhi-South Commissionerate rejected Petitioner's declaration holding it to be ineligible on the ground that there was no quantification of 'tax dues'. Petitioner engaged in correspondence with the Respondents, seeking copy of the statement recorded on 26th July, 2018. Subsequently it filed W.P (C). No. 1999/2020, before this Court, impugning the rejection. Vide order dated 11th March, 2020, this Court allowed the writ petition in favour of the Petitioner, with a direction to the Respondents to reconsider the matter after affording a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red on 26th July, 2018, reiterated through subsequent communications noted above, coupled with the acceptance thereof by the Respondent No. 3, ought to be considered as a written communication of the 'quantified amount' in accordance with the provisions of the SVLDRS read with the clarifications issued through circulars and FAQ's. He argued that no other amount was quantified in the investigation as on 30th June, 2019 and therefore Petitioner was eligible to make the declaration under section 123(c) of the Finance Act in respect thereof. Although the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 13th March, 2020 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Central Excise, Delhi-South Commissionerate, is in respect of several demands, however, in so far as the Service Tax liability of Rs. 1,75,63,982/- is concerned, the same stood quantified prior to the relevant date. Therefore, irrespective of the several heads / components of demand, the Petitioner is eligible to take benefit of the Scheme with respect to one such demand viz Service Tax liability. Mr. Agarwal also argued that CBIC has issued clarification regarding scope of the word "quantified" that the word 'written comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed in W.P.(C) 1999/2020, set-aside the same and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 16th March, 2020. Thereafter, a speaking order dated 23rd March, 2020 was passed rejecting the Petitioner's declaration. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "5. In the instant case, the 'tax dues' are to be made available/quantified by the investigating authority which informed vide their letter dated 05.12.2019 that they have not quantified the amount of duty payable on or before 30.06.2019. Therefore, it follows that there is no question of any relief under Section 124 (1)(d) as the assesse was not eligible to file a declaration under the SVLDRS as Section 125 (1)(e) of the Finance Act, 2019 debars them for doing so. 6. Further acceptance of the said declaration would also mean that the case would come to a closure in terms of Section 129 (1)(e) as the investigation would be completely concluded after issuing discharge certificate. Now the instant declaration of the assesse has been rejected as the investigation wing unambiguously provided in writing that the amount declared by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petitioner for the last time and concluded the Audit. All the observations were communicated to the Petitioner and further, W.P. (C) 3934/2020 Page 8 of 9 the tax amount on each issue was quantified and communicated to the Petitioner through various Computation Sheets." (emphasis supplied) 15. This Court finds that the duty amount mentioned in Form SVLDRS-1 by the petitioner is the same amount that had been admitted by the declarant during the last visit of the Audit Team on 28th June, 2019 as mentioned in the respondents "Audit Memo dated 2nd July, 2019." (emphasis supplied) 11. Petitioner heavily relies upon the aforesaid decision and contends that it's case is squarely covered by it. Undoubtedly, the said case also pertains to concept of quantification, however, facts of instant case are entirely different and we are afraid that judgment in the case of Seventh Plane Networks Pvt. Ltd (supra) will be of no assistance to the Petitioner and we cannot give benefit thereof and grant similar relief to the Petitioner. In the said case there was no dispute about the amount unlike the instance case. 12. Petitioner's file a declaration on the premise that it's case is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le for applying under the scheme. The meaning of the word 'quantified' has been extended and broadened, obviously keeping in view the objective of the Scheme by way of Circulars dated 12th December, 2019 and 27th August, 2019. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: A) Circular dated 12th December, 2019 "2. The references received by the Board have been examined, and the issues raised therein are clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and Rules made there-under, as follows: xxx xxx xxx (v) For the purpose of eligibility under the Scheme in some of the categories such as litigation, audit/enquiry/investigation etc., the relevant date is 30-6-2019. However, it may so happen that the facts of a case may change subsequently. For instance, in a case under audit/ investigation/enquiry where the tax dues have been quantified on or before 30.6.2019, a show cause notice is issued after 30-6-2019. Similarly, a case, which was under appeal as on 30-6-2019, may attain finality in view of appeal period being over etc. It is clarified that the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of accounts department as mentioned in answer of Q8, However, I promised to clear above dues within one week." 18. The question that arises for our consideration is whether by virtue of the aforesaid admission, the 'tax dues' can be said to quantified by the Investigating Authority before 30th June, 2019. The demand-cum-show cause notice dated 13th March, 2020, on the face of it relates to tax dues which are much more than the amount admitted by the Petitioner. No doubt, in so far as the Service Tax liability is concerned, which is one of the components of the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 13th March, 2020, there is no dispute between the parties with respect to the quantum. However, the aforesaid admission of liability of Service Tax, to our understanding, cannot be held to be quantification of the entire 'tax dues'. It is admission of Service tax liability only. Petitioner's contention that this should be treated as the quantified tax dues, is therefore, plainly incorrect. Mr. Puneet Agarwal had relied upon Section 129 of the Act to contend that even a single component of the entire demand can be taken up for settlement by the declarant. The aforesaid Section reads as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase for which the taxpayer intends to file a declaration under the Scheme. In the instant case, a 'return filed but duty not paid' is a separate matter and the SCN issued for 'differential amount' is a separate matter." 20. Relying upon the aforesaid provision, he argued that adjudication of the demand raised in the show-cause notice would not be impacted or jeopardized and the discharge certificate, if issued, under the Scheme would not have any bearing on the other heads of demand that are subject matter of the show-cause notice. He argued that Respondents will not be precluded to pursue with their show cause notice with the remaining demand other than what has been quantified during investigation as on 30th June, 2019. In our view, the interpretation of the Section, as sought to be given by the Petitioner, is plainly incorrect. The Section nowhere contemplates fragmented settlement of tax dues. The discharge certificate issued under Section 126 with respect to the amount payable under the Scheme is considered to be conclusive as to the matter and the time period stated therein. Under Clause (b) Sub Section 2 to Section 129, despite issuance of discharge certificate with respe....