TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This writ petition is directed against the statement dated 24.12.2019 issued by the Designated Committee i.e., respondent no.3, in the prescribed form i.e., SVLDRS-3, and the order dated 23.01.2020, whereby the petitioner's rectification application preferred under Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 [in short "2019 Act"] was rejected by respondent no.4. 2. Notice in the above-captioned writ petition, after hearing counsel for the parties for some time, was issued, via order dated 11.05.2022. On the said date, the following essentials concerning the dispute obtaining between the parties were captured by the Court: "1. Mr V. Lakshmikumaran, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn our attention to the Order-in-Original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o pay service tax, was disallowed. 2.2 It is emphasized by Mr Kumaran that, admittedly, the petitioner has paid in cash towards the tax demand, Rs.6,39,36,641/-. 3. Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [hereafter referred to as "Scheme"], the petitioner gets a rebate of 50% of the tax demand, which, according to Mr Kumaran, was pegged at, as noticed above, Rs.16,61,78,084/- and after accounting for rebate would be scaled down to Rs 8,30,89,042/-. 3.1 Therefore, Mr Kumaran says that, if against Rs. 8,30,89,042/-, Rs.6,39,36,641/- is set off, as this amount is already paid, the petitioner, rightly, paid towards tax the balance amount i.e., Rs.1,91,52,401/-. 5. It is Mr Kumaran su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blem which obtains in the instant case, concerns the amount that the petitioner could have been called upon to pay by the Designated Committee i.e., respondent no.3. 5. According to the petitioner, the total demand raised for the period in issue, as noticed on 11.05.2022, was Rs. 16,61,78,084/-. Against this amount, it is submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to a rebate of 50% under the scheme i.e., Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [in short "Scheme"], which would peg the amount payable at Rs.8,30,89,042/-. 5.1. The petitioner contends that Rs. 6,39,36,641/- having been paid, it should be called upon to pay towards tax, under the extant scheme, the remaining amount equivalent to Rs.1,91,52,401/-. 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16,61,78,084/-. 7.1. The fact that it is embedded, is sought to be demonstrated by Mr Lakshmikumaran by referring to the operative directions contained in the order-in-original dated 20.04.2015. 7.2. Besides this, Mr Lakshmikumaran also submits that the fact that the outstanding demand towards service tax for the period in issue, was rightly pegged at Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, is discernible from a bare perusal of additional directions contained in the order-in-original, concerning interest and penalty. 7.3. It is Mr Lakshmikumaran's say, that a close perusal of the same would show that both interest and penalty was sought to be recovered only on the demand amount i.e., Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, and not on the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 8,07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the investigation. I order appropriate of the same towards their interest liability. (d) I also impose Penalty, equal to duty amount confirmed as above, under Section 78 read with Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 of the Finance Act, 1994, inasmuch as the noticee had failed to discharge their Service Tax liability to the exchequer by suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. (e) I do not impose any Penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 as penalty is already imposed under Section 78 ibid. The penalty shall be reduced to 25% provided the duty demanded along with interest and 25% of the penalty is paid within 30 days of receipt of this order." 8.2. A careful perusal of the directions wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner from seeking the requisite benefits under the Scheme and the provisions of the Act. The calculation presented by the petitioner on the principles articulated before us, is not disputed by the respondents/revenue. 9.4. What the respondents/revenue dispute is, as indicated above, that the demand cannot be limited to Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, as the amount which was disallowed by way of CENVAT credit i.e., Rs. 8,07,72,766/-, had to be added to the same. 9.5. Besides this, in the alternative, Mr Hossain says that the said amount (i.e., Rs. 8,07,72,766/-), in any event, was recoverable under Rule 14 of the 2004 Rules. 9.6. We have queried Mr Hossain, if that was the case, why were no recovery proceedings commenced, even though the orde....