TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....local authorities etc. under the category of "works contract services". Petitioner was registered as a service provider under the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Petitioner has stated that its services were exempted from service tax in view of Exemption Notification dated 20.06.2012, as amended from time to time. 5. An enquiry was initiated by the Service Tax Department against the petitioner for the period from 2014-15 to June, 2017 on the ground that services provided by the petitioner were taxable and not exempted in terms of the aforesaid notification. It is submitted that pursuant to subsequent amendments carried out in the said notification certain services which were earlier exempt became taxable with effect from 01.04.2015. According to the petitioner it did not pay taxes for the services provided which became taxable later on after withdrawal of exemption. 6. During the enquiry petitioner submitted all the record as sought for by the authority. Statement of the proprietor Shri. Kirit Kedarnath Rai was recorded on 28.06.2019. In his statement the proprietor admitted service tax liability of Rs. 1,26,54,725.00. However, because of financial crisis it could not deposit the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty within a period of two days. Investigation of tax evasion is an elaborate and complex process where various angles and issues would have to be examined. This consumes sufficient time. Proprietor of the petitioner was granted opportunity of personal hearing whereafter its declaration was rejected. The declaration was rejected based on the verification report furnished by the investigating agency wherein it was clearly stated that the amount of tax due had not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. In so far petitioner's reference to letter dated 06.09.2019 is concerned, it is submitted that this letter itself is post 30.06.2019 and thus cannot be of any use to the petitioner. 12. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Therefore a detailed reference to such submissions is considered not necessary. However, the submissions so made have been duly considered. 13. The issue for consideration i.e., whether a declaration made under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit under the scheme would be maintainable or not where the tax dues had to be quantified on or before 30.06.2019 is no longer res-integra. 14. In Thought Blurb Vs. Unio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or before 30th June, 2019." 15. Again in the case of M/s. G. R. Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-2031-HC-MUM-ST, it has been held as follows :- "27. We have already noticed that proprietor of the petitioner in his statement recorded on 11.01.2018 by the investigating authority admitted the service tax liability of Rs. 60 lakhs (approximately) to be outstanding for the period from 2015-2016 to June, 2017. This was corroborated by the departmental authority in the letter dated 24.01.2018 which we have already noted and discussed. Therefore, present is a case where there is acknowledgment by the petitioner of the duty liability as well as by the department in its communication to the petitioner. Thus, it can be said that in the case of the petitioner the amount of duty involved had been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. In such circumstances, rejection of the application (declaration) of the petitioner on the ground of being ineligible with the remark that investigation was still going on and the duty amount was pending for quantification would not be justified. 28. This position has also been explained by the department itself in the form of fre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell as statement of its Director, Shri. Sanjay R. Shirke. In fact, on a pointed query by the Senior Intelligence Officer as to whether petitioner accepted and admitted the revised service tax liability of Rs. 2,47,32,456.00, the Director in his statement had clearly admitted and accepted the said amount as the service tax liability for the period from 2015-16 upto June, 2017 with further clarification that an amount of Rs. 1,20,60,000.00 was already paid. * * * * * 26. Following the above it is evident that the word 'quantified' under the scheme would mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report and not necessarily the amount crystalized following adjudication. Thus, petitioner was eligible to file the declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit as its service tax dues stood quantified before 30.06.2019." 17. In the instant case it is not disputed that statement of Shri. Kirit Kedarnath Rai, proprietor of ....