TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntract services and had been holding registration under Service Tax Law. Based on certain investigation, a show cause notice dated 20.04.2012 had been issued to Petitioner proposing recovery of service tax to the tune of Rs. 3,78,88,322/- alongwith interest and to impose penalties with reference to allegations levelled therein. 3. Ms. Manasi Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the ensued proceedings before adjudicating authority, certain amounts were deposited on various dates aggregating to Rs. 32,12,000/- towards service tax demanded under the show cause notice purporting to give its particulars in a table in paragraph 5 of the Petition, and purporting to support the same by copies of corresponding challans annexed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at they would apply under the category "arrears" and pay 60% of the disputed tax dues with an undertaking that the order would not be challenged further. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in view of aforesaid circular, Petitioner had opted for the Sabka Vishwas dispute resolution scheme (SVLDRS) and had filed necessary declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 showing tax arrears of Rs. 3,78,88,322/- and pre-deposit of duty as Rs. 2,73,00,045/- and tax dues (after tax relief) were shown as Rs. 63,52,966.20/-, with the pre-deposit comprising the amount of Rs. 32,12,000/- paid by the Petitioner from time to time in the proceedings after show cause notice. The Petitioner had communicated to the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai that they have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e again issued statement under Section 127 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 in Form SVLDRS-3 showing the estimated amount of Rs. 82,80,167/- without taking into account and giving effect to the deposit of Rs. 32,12,000/- paid after receipt of show cause notice. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws our attention to the circular No. 1074/07/2019-CX dated 12.12.2019 and particularly to para 2(ii) clarifying thus :- "Section 124(2) provides for adjustment of any amount paid as pre-deposit at any stage of appellate proceedings or as deposit during enquiry, investigation or audit. However, an amount paid after issuance of show cause notice but before adjudication are not mentioned therein. Further, these amounts gets appropriated/adjust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tablishing payment of service tax for the relevant period and in the absence of the evidence, it is not possible to correlate the payment made during the financial year towards the service tax liability demanded under the subject show cause notice and thus, deposit of Rs. 32,12,000/- was not deducted. The Petition is also sought to be resisted referring to para 2(ii) of the circular dated 12.12.2019. When adjudicating authority had not considered appropriation of the amount in its order, the Petitioner's case would not get covered under the provisions of the circular dated 12.12.2019. There is adjudication order and claimed deposit is not appropriated against the demand notice. It is difficult to go beyond the order passed in adjudication. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t paid was Rs. 2,73,00,045/and as per AIO-ST module data, the payment for the subject period was Rs. 1,90,88,045/-. Thus, the SVLDRS Committee issued SVLDRS-2 dated 22.02.2020 for estimated payable amount of Rs. 82,80,167/- and finally issued SVLDRS-3 on 26.02.2020 for payment of the said amount. 17. It has further been referred to paragraph 10.5 of the affidavit-in-reply with reference to the claim of the Petitioner about deposit aggregating to Rs. 32,12,000/- on various dates towards demanded service tax in the show cause notice, copy of letter dated 14.05.2019 to the jurisdictional superintendent had not been received in the jurisdictional office i. e. Division-VII but in another Division-IV, Sales Tax-II and as such, the same is not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been considered that the same cannot be rejected for a fault not attributable to the petitioner. It had been observed that the whole object of digitization is to convenience the tax payers and not to harass them and the actions which tend to decline eligible assessees, the benefit otherwise accrued, for the faults not attributable to them would be wholly unfair and unjust. 20. On the whole, the approach of the authorities appears to be rather hyper-technical, as electronic data base does not disclose the payment despite challans being produced by the petitioner and further that the communication by the petitioner is to some other jurisdictional superintendent's office and not to the concerned one shows an apathetic approach and in the pro....