TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel appearing for the respondent - Department. 2. An inquiry was pending against the petitioners before the Intelligence Office of the Service Tax, Vapi on the ground that they had shown lesser taxable value in the service tax returns to evade tax liability. A detailed investigation was carried out and upon verification of all the documents produced by the petitioners and after recording the statements, the competent authority directed the petitioners to pay differential service tax demand of Rs. 82,26,42,852/- vide communication dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure-D to the petition). 3. The matter remained pending and in the meantime the Central Government floated the Scheme by the name "SVLDRS-2019" on 01.09.2019. The petitioners wanted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oners under the Scheme was not accepted for the reason as stated in the Form SVLDRS-1 (Annexure-I to the petition) that "the service tax liability was not quantified and communicated finally before 30.06.2019 i.e. cut off date for SVLDRS". 6. The petitioners claim to have made the representation after the said communication stating that there was no fault of the petitioners in the quantification and it was the department that had committed mistake which it subsequently rectified, and therefore, the petitioners' application under the Scheme ought to be accepted and entertained. 7. When no further communication was received by the petitioners, they approached this Court by way of the present petition. Notices were issued and counter affidav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the demand raised from Rs. 82,26,42,852/- and reduced it to Rs. 4,99,03,524/-. 10 The petitioners may not have been in a position to deposit Rs. 41 crore and odd (being 50% of the initial demand) to avail the benefit of the Scheme, but having received the communication of an amount which was almost 6% of the earlier demand raised, thought it proper and in their interest to apply under the Scheme. The petitioners applied within the time on 31.12.2019. 11. The amount had been wrongly quantified for no fault of the petitioners. It was an apparent mistake made by the Department. The Department thus ought not to have rejected the application of the petitioners by alleging that the quantification had been made after the cut off date. The quanti....