TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....office at Malad (W), Mumbai. It is engaged in the business of providing construction of residential complex services to its customers. Being a service provider it was registered as such under the Finance Act, 1994. 4. It is stated that petitioner was filing its service tax returns from time to time and paying service tax dues wherever applicable. 5. Service tax department initiated investigation against the petitioner for alleged non-payment of service tax covering the period from 1st April, 2012 to 30th June, 2017. In this connection, summons were issued to the petitioner. Statement of one of the partners of the petitioner, namely, Shri Pranay Pravin Patel was recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 on 29th May, 2018. 6. In connection with the said inquiry, office of the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Mumbai (W) had issued intimation to the petitioner dated 27th July, 2018 mentioning that service tax liability to the extent of Rs. 250 lakhs was outstanding though an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs was paid. Reference was made to the promise made by Shri Patel, the partner in his statement recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al benefits have been provided to the dealers making declaration under the scheme subject to eligibility. 13. In terms of the said scheme petitioner filed declaration on 31st December, 2019 under the category of "Investigation, Enquiry or Audit", within the sub-category of "Investigation By Commissionerate". Petitioner mentioned that service tax dues outstanding against it was Rs. 2,62,04,144.00. 14. However, respondent No.6 by order dated 24th February, 2020 rejected the declaration of the petitioner on the ground of ineligibility. In the remarks column it was mentioned that tax dues were not quantified as per letter No. F.No.V/CGST/Mum West/T-4/Landmark/Enquiry/14/2018 dated 5th February, 2020 from DC(Investigation), CGST, Mumbai (W). 15. Petitioner submitted letter dated 26th February, 2020 requesting respondent No.4 to grant an opportunity of hearing to explain its eligibility under the scheme. However there was no response. 16. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 17. Petitioner contends that it was eligible and its declaration under the mentioned category was valid. In this connection petitioner has placed reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability admitted by the petitioner during enquiry was not final as the quantum was changed repeatedly by the petitioner. 23. Regarding grant of personal hearing it is stated that in the present case hearing was not granted as the declaration itself was not admissible in the absence of quantification of service tax dues before 30th June, 2019. Since there was no provision for granting hearing to decide eligibility, Designated Committee rejected the declaration without any hearing. 24. In the above circumstances, respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition. 25. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the contentions made in the writ petition. In addition, petitioner has relied upon certain judgments passed by this court. Further reference has been made to section 87(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 whereafter petitioner contends that a notice under the said section can only be issued for recovery of an amount which has been found to be due from a person. Therefore, when the respondents had issued notice dated 4th December, 2018 under section 87(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, it is an acknowledgment of the fact that the outstanding dues of the petitioner had crystal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31^st March, 2017 at Rs. 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of Rs. 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner's tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. 50. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019." 29. Subsequently, in M/s G.R.Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-2031-HC-MUM-ST, this court 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the duty demand had been quantified on or before 30.06.2019 would be eligible under the scheme. The word "quantified" has been defined under the scheme as a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment. In such circumstances, Board clarified that such written communication would include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc. 23. Reverting back to the facts of the present case we find that there is clear admission / acknowledgment by the petitioner about the service tax liability. The acknowledgment is dated 27.06.2019 i.e., before 30.06.2019 both in the form of letter by the petitioner as well 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. * * * *....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the service tax department as on 30th June, 2019. Therefore, the view was taken that the declarant was not eligible under the scheme. We have already discussed in the cases alluded to hereinabove that considering the Board's circular dated 27th August, 2019 and the frequently asked questions (FAQs) prepared by the department, the above view is not correct because the quantification is for the purpose of eligibility under the scheme and not for the prupose of investigation into alleged tax evasion, and therefore finalisation of tax dues by the department is not necessary. 35. But there is one more aspect which we feel needs to be pointed out. While rejecting the declaration of the petitioner respondents have placed reliance on the letter dated 5th February, 2020. But copy of the same was not furnished to the petitioner. Suffice it to say that it is a settled proposition that when an authority relies upon a document to take a decision which is adverse or prejudicial to a party, principles of natural justice demands that copy of such document or the essence thereof should be furnished to the affected party before the decision is taken so that the affected party can properly de....