TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a sum of Rs.36,72,679/- which it had already paid even before the show cause notice was issued. 2. Petitioner carries on business as a sole proprietor and was engaged in providing taxable services of construction under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. Petitioner was registered with the Service Tax Authorities and had a registration No. AAXPT2836QST001. During course of an audit initiated by Respondent No.2-Commissioner Service Tax, Mumbai, it was observed that Petitioner had received Rs.4.8 Crores during April, 2007 to March, 2008 and Petitioner had defaulted in payment of Rs.21,93,064/- as service tax. Respondent No.2 called upon Petitioner to pay the service tax along with interest on delayed payment and later was directed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red Fifty Seven Only) out of the demand of Rs.1,73,95,858.00 demanded under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and I drop the amount of Rs.61,41,502.00 for reasons mentioned in Para-25 above. 32. I order recovery of interest at appropriate rate on the above amount confirmed from the assessee under Section 75 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 from the date the amount of Service Tax was payable till the date it is paid; 33. I confirm the interest of Rs.6,27,761.00 for delay in payment of service tax of Rs.57,60,000.00 in Jan' 08 instead of Mar;07 under Section 75 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 34. I refrain from imposing penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 as penalty is proposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s determined by the designated committee, Petitioner was welcome to appear for personal hearing at the time fixed to make submission. In the remarks of Form No. SVLDRS-2 it was mentioned that "Pre-deposit amount not matching. Please explain why your application may not be rejected." Since Petitioner was of the view that it was not liable to pay the estimated amount and intended to file SVLDRS-2A disagreeing with SVLDRS-2, Petitioner could not, due to technical glitch, file the SVLDRS-2A. Petitioner informed Respondent No.5 about the same and the personal hearing was postponed to 25th February, 2020 instead of 21st February, 2020. After the personal hearing, Petitioner tendered written submissions dated 27th February, 2020 to which was annex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r a part of the designated committee. It shocks the conscience of this Court to permit continuance of such a practice. It is a most unreasonable and unfair practice. Every declarant is entitled to know the reason why his submissions have been rejected. Therefore, we hereby direct the Central Government that, in every case where Form No. SVLDRS-3 is received, a copy of the designated committee's report/opinion, i.e., detailed reason for arriving at the conclusion that it has arrived at shall be simultaneously provided on the website and if that is technically not feasible, within 48 hours a copy of the same shall either be sent by email or by courier to the declarant. A copy of this order be placed before the Central Board of Indirect Taxes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Show Cause Notice are present. Nor is there any appropriation of such tax paid proposed in the subject Order-In-Original. To sum it up the claimed pre-deposit amount of Rs.36,72,679/- is neither proposed for appropriation in the Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2012 nor in the Order-In-Original dated 24.03.2018." From the above it is Respondent's view that because the show cause notice and order-in-original are silent about details of payment of service tax or any appropriation of payment of service tax credit for Rs.36,72,679/- cannot be given. 11. Certainly the show cause notice is silent about this amount of Rs.36,72,679/- which Petitioner claims to have paid. But in the reply to the show cause notice, Petitioner has certa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he demand made under instant show cause notice are produced before me, hence I am unable to consider the same for appropriation against the demand of Rs.1,12,54,357.00 is to be confirmed." (Emphasis supplied) Therefore to state in the affidavit in reply that even in the order-in-original there are no details provided is incorrect. 13. At the same time, this finding of the adjudicating authority, i.e., Respondent No.2, was never challenged by Petitioner in Appeal. There is a clear finding by the adjudicating authority that there was nothing in the challans to establish that the payment of Rs.36,72,679/- has been made against amount of demand made under the instant show cause notice and no ST-3 return containing remark about such paymen....