TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner was duly registered as a service provider under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. It is stated that petitioner was filing periodical returns under the Finance Act, 1994 and paying service tax wherever applicable. 5. Service tax authorities initiated audit inquiry against the petitioner for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17. In response thereto petitioner replied to respondent No. 3 acknowledging that petitioner had not filed service tax returns for the period from October, 2016 to March, 2017 that is part of the financial year 2016-17 and first quarter of the financial year 2017-18. Several reasons were mentioned for not filing service tax returns. However, request was made to respondent No. 3 for grant of time for payment of the statutory dues. Alongwith the said letter petitioner enclosed therewith the financial statement for the period 2015-16 upto June, 2017 acknowledging service tax amount dues at Rs. 40,95,110.00 excluding interest and late fees. 6. Additional Commissioner (Audit-II, Mumbai) wrote to the petitioner vide letter dated 6th September, 2018 stating that the audit of petitioner's records had been assigned to certain officers with a requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es have been duly considered. 14. Issue raised in the present writ petition vis-a-vis maintainability of the declaration of the petitioner or eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of investigation, inquiry or audit on the ground that quantification of the service tax dues for the related period was post 30th June, 2019 is no longer res-integra. 15. In Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India, 2020-TIOL-1813-HC-MUM-ST, this court faced with a similar issue referred to the circular dated 27th August, 2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (briefly "the Board" hereinafter) whereafter it was held as under:- "47. Reverting back to the circular dated 27th August, 2019 of the Board, it is seen that certain clarifications were issued on various issues in the context of the scheme and the rules made thereunder. As per paragraph 10(g) of the said circular, the following issue was clarified in the context of the various provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2019 and the Rules made thereunder:- Cases under an enquiry, investigation or audit where the duty demand has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an 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 frequently asked questions (FAQs). Question Nos. 3 and 45 and the answers provided thereto are relevant and those are reproduced hereunder:- "Q3. If an enquiry or investigation or audit has started but the tax dues have not been quantified whether the person is eligible to opt for the Scheme? Ans. No. If an audit, enquiry or investigation has started, and the amount of duty/duty payable has not been quantified on or before 30th June, 2019, the person shall not be eligible to opt for the Scheme under the enquiry or investigation or audit category. 'Quantified' means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment [Section 121(r)]. Such written communication will include ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rily the amount crystallized 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." 18. From the above it is evident that all that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable including a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit. 19. In so far the present case is concerned, it is evident that petitioner in his letter dated 22nd May, 2018 addressed to respondent No. 3 had specifically mentioned that the service tax amount due to be paid by the petitioner was Rs. 40,95,110.00. In his declaration in terms of the scheme he mentioned the duty payable as Rs. 40,91,524.00 which amount corresponds to the quantification arrived at by respondent No. 4 post 30th June, 2019 at Rs. 40,91,524.00. When petitioner had admitted duty liability of a slightly higher figure much before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019, it would be too technical....