TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the business of providing 'erection, commissioning and installation' 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 service tax returns regularly and was paying service tax wherever applicable. 5. Service tax department initiated investigation against the petitioner on 03.10.2011 on the ground of alleged non-payment of service tax dues for the period covering 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011. In the course of investigation, statement of Shri. Abiraj Rajan, Managing Director of the petitioner was recorded on 03.10.2011 and 13.02.2012 under section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. During the course of investigation, petitioner made a deposit of Rs. 1,30,00,000.00 under protest. 7. On the basis of the investigation carried out, show cause-cum-demand notice dated 20.04.2012 was issued to the petitioner from the office of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II. It was stated therein that service tax dues amounting to Rs. 3,76,12,232.00 for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011 was outstanding against the petitioner along with interest and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solution) Scheme, 2019 (briefly 'the Scheme' hereinafter) vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) to bring to an end pending litigations pertaining to central excise and services tax under the erstwhile indirect tax regime which have been subsumed under GST providing for substantial relief to the declarants subject to eligibility. 13. Petitioner filed declaration under the scheme on 14.01.2020 under the category of 'litigation' and sub-category of 'appeal pending'. It was mentioned therein that appeal was pending as on 30.06.2019 and no final hearing was held before 30.06.2019 which was the cut-off date under the scheme. Petitioner mentioned the outstanding service tax dues at Rs. 3,76,12,232.00 and claimed pre-deposit of Rs. 2,54,41,389.00 (the said figure should however have been Rs. 2,32,55,913.00). 14. Petitioner has contended that under section 124(1)(a) of the Act, the amount payable under the scheme is 50% of the tax dues if one or more than one appeal was pending as on 30.06.2019. Referring to section 124(2) of the said Act, it is contended that the scheme allows for deduction of any pre-deposit made by a declarant while arriving at the estimat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the above, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 19. Notice in this case was issued on 25.09.2020. 20. Responding to the notice, respondents have filed reply affidavit through Ms. Manpreet Arora, Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Belapur. In the said affidavit, she has stated that she agrees with the contention of the designated committee that the entire amount of Rs. 65,00,000.00 was paid towards the service tax liability for the period 2011-12. Further, the amount of Rs. 56,11,819.00 was not eligible for deduction because it could not be ascertained whether the payments were made towards the demand confirmed in the order-in-original or for the period post 2011. The fact that petitioner did not file any service tax return post March, 2012 made it impossible to ascertain the period for which the payments were made. Reference has been made to that portion of the order-in-original whereby the Commissioner had declined to include payments made by M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Limited as payments on behalf of the petitioner to meet the service tax dues of the petitioner. Moreover, during the course of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Rs. 1,02,55,913.00 comprising of two amounts - Rs. 46,44,094.00 paid by M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Limited and Rs. 56,11,819.00 thereby resulting in quantification of the amount of Rs. 58,06,116.00 as payable by the petitioner whereas petitioner is not required to pay any amount in terms of the scheme. 23. On the other hand, Mr. Walve, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the order-in-original dated 27.09.2018 and submits that the adjudicating authority i.e., the Commissioner has clearly discussed as to why payments received from M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Limited to the extent of Rs. 1,07,00,000.00 could not be accepted as being paid on account of service tax dues of the petitioner. He submits that adjudicating authority has clearly recorded that there was no documentary evidence / letter issued by M/s. Walchandnagar Industries Limited confirming the payment so made against the direction given by the service tax department to pay the amounts due to the noticee as service tax. 23.1. He has also referred to paragraph 10 of the reply affidavit filed by the respondents. Contention of Mr. Walve is that arguments made by the petitioner against the order-in-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payments made on behalf of the petitioner by the adjudicating authority i.e., the Commissioner on the ground that no evidence was submitted to that effect. Regarding the further payments made by the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 56,11,819.00, stand taken by the respondents is that the challans pertaining to payment of the aforesaid amount were from August, 2013 to April, 2015. Designated committee could not ascertain whether the said payment was for the period covered by the investigation or for the period beyond the investigation. Therefore, designated committee could not provide relief to the petitioner vis-a-vis the amount of Rs. 56,11,819.00. In paragraph 21 of the reply affidavit, it is stated that designated committee could not ascertain with confidence whether the said payment pertained to the period covered by the investigation i.e., by the order-in-original or pertained to period post 2012. Nonetheless, respondents have admitted receipt of the said amount of Rs. 56,11,819.00 but the stand taken is that it could not be completely verified whether the said payment covered the period in question. 28. Before we refer to the relevant provisions of the Act or the scheme, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at liquidating the legacy cases locked up in litigation at various forums whereas the amnesty component gives an opportunity to those who have failed to correctly discharge their tax liability to pay the tax dues. As may be seen, this scheme offers substantial relief to the taxpayers and others who may potentially avail it. Moreover, the scheme also focuses on the small taxpayers as would be evident from the fact that the extent of relief provided is higher in respect of cases involving lesser duty (smaller taxpayers can generally be expected to face disputes involving relatively lower duty amounts)." 31. After saying so, the Board concluded as under:- "12. The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 has the potential to liquidate the huge outstanding litigation and free the taxpayers from the burden of litigation and investigation under the legacy taxes. The administrative machinery of the Government will also be able to fully focus on helping the taxpayers in the smooth implementation of GST. Thus, the importance of making this scheme a grand success cannot be overstated. The Principal Chief Commissioners/Principal Directors General/ Chief Commissioners/Directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... well as records available with the department. 35. A conjoint reading of sub-section (1) of section 126 and sub-rule (1) of rule 6 makes it clear that declaration made by a declarant shall be verified by the designated committee. Such verification shall be based on particulars furnished by the declarant as well as the records available with the department which would include show cause-cum-demand notice or order-in-original, as the case may be. 36. The crucial word appearing in sub-section (1) of section 126 which finds its resonance in sub-rule (1) of rule 6 is 'verify'. What is the meaning of or connotation of the word "verify"? As per Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Indian Edition, "verify" means to make sure or demonstrate that something is true, accurate or justified; swear to or support a statement by affidavit. Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, has defined the word "verify" to mean- 1. to prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or truthfulness of; to authenticate. 2. To confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit; to swear to the truth of. 37. It is a settled principle of interpretation that words and expressions used in a legislation must take ....