TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer Engineering (P) Ltd., represented by its Director Shri. T.K. Kumar. 2. W.P.No.12957 of 2020 and W.P.Nos.3320 & 3322 of 2022 have been filed by M/s. True Value Homes India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director and Chairman N. Ravichandran. 3. Issues involved in W.P.No.11785 of 2020 and W.P.No.12957 of 2020 are identical. These two writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners for the following relief:- W.P.No.11785 of 2020 (Win Power Engineering (P) Ltd.) W.P.No.12957 of 2020 (True Value HomesIndiaPvt. Ltd.) For issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records leading to the issue of impugned order of rejection of SVLDRS declaration filed vide ARN No.1301200003572 dated 13.01.2020 and process for issuance of Discharge Certificate in SVLDRS Form 4 as the requisite liability of more than 50% of the tax dues as per the said Scheme has already been paid by the petitioner Writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent in respect of application No.LD3112190017424 dated 31.12.2019 filed by the petitioner under the Sabk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme, 2019 and others, dated 23.02.2022 in W.A.No.2450 of 2021. 11. By the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.12635 of 2020 and thus dismissed the appeal against order dated 17.09.2020 in the said Writ Petition. 12. Pursuant to the same, a note was prepared and placed beforethe Hon'ble Chief Justice. The then Hon'ble Chief Justice vide Order dated 24.03.2022 ordered for grouping of these four Writ Petitions before a Division Bench for a final disposal. Thus, these cases are before us. 13. We have considered the arguments advanced by Mr.Vijay Narayanan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.AbishekJenasenan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12957 of 2020 and W.P.Nos.3320 & 3322 of 2022 and Mr.G.Natarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11785 of 2020. 14. We have also considered the arguments advanced by Mr.A.P.Srinivas, the learned Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.H.Siddarth, Junior Standing Counsel (Customs and GST) for the second respondent in W.P.No.11785 of 2020 and Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded as follows:- "11. On appreciation of the factual matrix of the case, this court finds that there are no merits in this writ appeal for the simple reason that on 28.05.2019, a search was conducted in the premises of the appellant, pursuant to which, the appellant submitted a letter dated 13.06.2019 admitting such investigation and produced certain documents in continuance of the same. When such being the case, the appeal is hit by the provisions of Clause 121(r) and 125 (1) (e) of the Scheme, thereby making himself ineligible to invoke section 127(2) of the scheme. The relevant clauses contained under the scheme are reproduced hereunder:- "121. In this scheme, unless the context otherwise requires:- (r) "quantified", with its cognate expression, means a written communication of the amount of duty payable under the indirect tax enactment" 125. (1) All persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the following, namely (e) who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; 12. Thus, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence to be answered by the Division Bench. The reason for making the reference is as follows:- "3. However, before taking up the cases for hearing, M/s. M.Sheela, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Court about the recent decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.2450 of 2021 dated 23.02.2022 in the case of Vital Rao Jayaprakash Vs. The Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 & others. 4. By relying upon the said decision, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, even on maintainability of these writ petitions, the issue has been decided by the writ court, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, where the stand taken was that, the Scheme itself was over by 30.06.2020, before which, if writ petition was filed for any reason, that could be entertainable. However, beyond 30.06.2020, if any writ petition is filed, that could be rejected as the same was filed beyond the scheme period, therefore, on that ground, the writ petition can be rejected. Accordingly, it was rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the following two writ petitions on the below mentioned dates:- W.P.No. Name Date of application Date of Filing of the respective Writ Petitions. 11785 of 2020 Win Power Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 09.11.2019 13.01.2020* 27.08.2020 True Value Homes Pvt. Ltd. 12957 of 2020 31.12.2019** 14.09.2020 (*On the same date applications were auto rejected in the system which have been impugned in these two writ petitions). 21. If order dated 17.09.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12635 of 2020 as affirmed by the Division Bench in Vital Rao Jayaprakash Vs. The Designated Committee, is to be accepted as the binding precedent, W.P.No.11785 of 2020 and W.P.No.12957 of 2020 are to be dismissed without further discussion. 22. We are however of the view, that the rejection of applications filed by the respective petitioners and communication of the same after the scheme has expired did not bar the respective petitioners from challenging the impugned orders rejecting their application under the SVLDRS,2019. 23. If the benefit of SVLDRS, 2019 was otherwise available and wrongly denied to the respective petitioners, then, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me relief for cases under investigation and audit where the duty involved is quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. e. In case of an amount in arrears, the relief offered is 60% of the confirmed duty amount if the same is rupees fifty lakhs or less and it is 40% in other cases. f. In cases of voluntary disclosure, the declarant will have to pay the full amount of disclosed duty. 28. Further, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has issued instructions vide C.B.I&C. Instruction No.1/2021-CX, dated 17.03.2021 empowering the concerned Designated Committees to manually process the declarations in cases where the High Courts remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 29. Thus, merely because it was intended that the scheme should result in closure of cases with defaulters paying the amount, the scheme has been allowed to run beyond the period. Relevant portion of the said instruction reads as under:- 1...... The cases in which the Hon'ble High Court has decided in favour of the declarant and remanded the matter back to the concerned Designated Committee for fresh decision are referred to the Board for grant of permission for manual processing of the subject declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 31.12.2019 which was extended to 15.01.2020. 35. We are therefore of the view, if the Declarations were filed for settling the tax case under SVLDRS, 2019 in time but were rejected at the threshold, an applicant whose application was rejected cannot be left without any remedy as the right to have the case settled under the SVLDRS, 2019 is a substantive right. 36. We however, make it clear that the right to redress a grievance against rejection of Declaration under SVLDRS, 2019 is subject to a caveat that the applicant whose Declaration was rejected under SVLDRS, 2019, was indeed entitled to file a Declaration under SVLDRS,2019. 37. In other words, if an applicant was barred from filing aDeclaration under SVLDRS, 2019, such applicant cannot be given any relief. However, to come to a conclusion, the Court has to examine the issue on merits. 38. In our view, the respective Writ petitions cannot be rejected in limine. The cases of the petitioners therefore deserve a consideration on merits. We are therefore of the view that the two writ petitions challenging the rejection of the Declaration are maintainable. However, whether the respective petitioners are entitled for relief is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrived at the total tax payable as Rs. 37,84,41,930 /- by the petitioner. 48. The challenge to the impugned Show Cause Notice No.47 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020 in W.P No. 3320 of 2022 is based on the challenge to the Notification No.22/2014-ST dated 16.09.2014 in W.P No. 3322 of 2022. 49. Though, these two writ petitions were not argued at length, we make it clear that that the second respondent, the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, is a Central Excise Officer. 50. The second respondent was therefore competent to issue the impugned Show Cause Notice No.47 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020 under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the petitioner. Whether the Show Cause Notice makes out a case for evasion of tax, warranting invocation of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 is altogether a different issue. We will refrain from making any observation on the merits of the case. 51. In case, W.P.No. 12957 of 2020 is answered in favour of the petitioner, the challenge to the impugned Show Cause Notice No.47 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020 will have to closed. 52. On the other hand, in case, W.P.No.12957 of 2020 is answered against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Central Excise Officer of the corresponding rank as specified in the Column (3) of the said Table, such powers being the powers of a Central Excise Officer conferred under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The Table to the said Notification reads as under:- S.No. Designation Jurisdiction 1. Director General, Central Excise Intelligence Chief Commissioner of Central Excise for of India 2. Additional Director, Central Excise Intelligence Commissioner of Central Excise or whole of India 3. Additional Director, Central Excise Intelligence Additional Commissioner of Central Excise for whole of India 4. Joint Director, Central Excise Intelligence Joint Commissioner of Central Excise for whole of India 5. Deputy Director, Central Excise Intelligence Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise for whole of India 6. Assistant Director, Central Excise Intelligence Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for whole of India 7. Superintendent, Central Excise Intelligence Superintendent of Central Excise for whole of India 8. Inspector, Central Excise Intelligence Inspector of Central Excise 182. Later in exercise of the powers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted with the officers of Directorate General of Audit, Customs and Central Excise vide Notification No.28/2008-C.E. (N.T.) dated 05.06.2008 by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 186. Similar Notifications have been issued, specifically, by Notification No.14/2017 - C.E. (N.T.), dated 09.06.2017 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 37A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and in supersession of the Notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Notification No.11/2007-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 01.03.2009, No.16/2007-Service Tax dated 19.04.2007 and No.6/2009 - Service Tax dated 30.01.2009. 187. The Central Government directed that the powers exercisable by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, may be exercised by the following officers for the purpose of assignment of adjudication of notices to show cause issued under the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Excise Officers" under Notification No.38/2001-C.E. (N.T), dated 26.06.2001 for whole of India cannot exercise power pan India. Notification No.22/2014-ST dated 6.09.2014 is to be read in conjunction with Notification No.38/2001- C.E. (N.T), dated 26.06.2001. 193. Therefore, the 2nd argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners as far as jurisdiction to issue Show Cause Notice cannot be accepted. 194. Therefore, the argument of some of the counsel for the petitioners that the officer of Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) [presently The Directorate of GST Intelligence] are not "Central Excise Officer" and cannot exercise function Pan India cannot be accepted. 195. No restriction can be inferred on the powers of the Board while appointing the officers of the Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) [presently The Directorate of GST Intelligence] to act as "Central Excise Officers". 196. Thus, it cannot be said that the officers who has been vested with the powers under the impugned Notification No.22/2014-S.T., dated 06.09.2014, are not the "Central Excise Officers". 55. In our view, the Officers of Principal Additional Director General of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ystem and to pave a way to recover the tax dues of errant, recalcitrant taxpayer and those taxpayers who were in litigation with the government. 63. Under the SVLDRS, 2019, an amnesty scheme was devised to facilitate such tax payers to pay a percentage of the tax dues under specified central laws which were earlier subsumed under the respective GST Acts of 2017 with effect from 01.07.2017. 64. The intent behind the scheme was to enable businesses to have a fresh start with implementation of GST and for the authorities to close the case provided , such tax payer was eligible to opt for the SVLDRS, 2019. 65. The dispute resolution component of the scheme was aimed to liquidate the legacy cases locked up in litigation at various fora. While, the amnesty component gives an opportunity to those who have failed to correctly discharge their tax liability by paying a percentage of the tax dues while waiving balance tax liabilities, interest, and penalties. 66. The scheme opened on 01.09.2019. A person who owed any of the specified tax quantified before 30.6.2019, could file Declaration electronically. Initially, the last date for filing Declaration was 31.12.2019. It was later extended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Act, 1944. 71. Thus, SVLDRS, 2019 seeks to achieve twin objectives. It allows the department to close pending cases and recover a percentage of the tax/duty arrears/dues from those assesses who are in arrears and also allows them to have an amnesty provided the case of the assessee does not fall within the exception in Section 125 of the Act. 72. The Designated Committee consists of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise and Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The Designated Committee has rejected the applications filed by the respective petitioners under the provisions of SVLDRS, 2019. 73. The reason for rejecting the application filed by the respective petitioners in W.P.Nos.11785 & 12957 of 2020 are as follows:- Sl. No. W.P.No. Date of Impugned Order Application No. Reason for rejection of application 1 11785/2020 13.01.2020 LD130120000 3572 No quantification done prior to 30.06.2019 2 12957/2020 31.12.2019 LD311219001 7424 No quantification done prior to 30.06.2019, not eligible as per dggi letter dated 28.02.2020. 74. Of the various categories of disputes, both the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11785 & 12957 of 2020 have applied under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the petitioner to appear before the authority thereunder on 07.05.2019. The petitioner was called upon to submit various documents. In particular, the petitioner was asked to submit documents relating to the services rendered to M/s. Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) in addition to details of issue of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and service tax liability for the period 201415 to June 2017. 83. The petitioner vide its reply dated 07.05.2019 had worked out the tax liability with respect to the services rendered to AWHO and submitted the other documents that were called for. This petitioner relied on this communication dated 07.05.2019 to make a case that the duty amount of Rs.37,08,90,828/- was quantified prior to 30.06.2019. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioner was qualified to file a Declaration under SVLDRS,2019. We shall refer to the above quantification later in this order. 84. The petitioner in W.P.No.12957 of 2020 filed its first Declaration under the SVLDRS, 2019 on 31.12.2019 for the period between 2014-15 to 2017-18 (June 2017). The Declaration filed by the petitioner was rejected citing that "no quantification done prior to 30.06.2019, not eligi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... misconceived. It is submitted that the Declaration filed by the respective petitioners have been wrongly rejected as the disqualification under Section 125(1)(e) of the SVLDRS, 2019 was not attracted. Rather, it was submitted that the respective petitioners came within the purview of the exceptions provided in the aforesaid provisions. 91. It is submitted that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, by Circular No.1071/4/2019-CX.8, dated 27.08.2019 in F.No.267/78/2019-CX-8-Pt.III, has clarified that even a written communication by an assessee would amount to quantification for the purpose of Section 2(r) of SVLDRS, 2019, which describes the meaning of the expression 'quantified'. 92. It is submitted that the expression 'quantified' in Section 2(r) of SVLDRS, 2019 will include a letter intimating tax dues and/ or duty liability. It is submitted that admission of such liability by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit; or in the course of audit report etc. entitled them to the benefit of SVLDRS,2019. 93. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12957 of 2020 and W.P.Nos.3320 & 3322 of 2022 referred to Question No.45 in Frequently Asked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thers, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4418 : (2022) 103 GSTR 310. 98. The learned Senior Standing Counsel has also drawn attention to certain E-mail exchanges between the petitioner and the Department to demonstrate that there was no quantification of "tax dues" by the petitioner in W.P.No.11785 of 2020on or before 30th June. 99. It is submitted that several communications have been conveniently suppressed by the petitioners as they clearly highlight that the audit was not finalized and the quantification of liability was not crystallized. On the other hand, the audit was in progress as is evident from the repeated reminders sent by the respondents to produce documents to compute the tax liability of the petitioner. 100. The learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner on 24.10.2018 had only produced a worksheet showing invoice wise details for the period from April 2017 to June 2017 and the same was not supported by any copies of invoices or service tax returns. The petitioner therefore, have arrived at their own service tax liability and have made payments through various instalments, without submitting the required documents necessary during audit. 101. The learned Sen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Panel Counsel submitted that the application was rejected by the Designated Committee based on the report dated 28.02.2020 received from the Director General for GST Intelligence (DGGI), Chennai Zonal Unit which stated that investigation was in progress and was not completed and hence, the service tax was yet to be quantified. 108. The learned Senior Panel Counsel submitted that the quantification of service tax liability arrived at by the petitioner as per their own calculation has not been accepted by the Department and as per the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2020. It is submitted that actual tax liability of the petitioner was much higher than the dues calculated by the petitioner. 109. It is further submitted that the entire processing of SVLDRS declaration is an online process right from filing of Declaration to issuing of discharge certificate by the Designated Committee. It is submitted the information is available in the system and the system captures the details and either accepts or rejects the Declaration. 110. It is submitted that the scheme is fully automated and any person desiring to make an application is required to answer a set of questions to decide about the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 are also similar. 121. As mentioned elsewhere, a Declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 could be made only by a person who was eligible to file such Declaration. Declaration was to be filed on or before 31stDecember, 2019 which was later extended till 15.01.2020. 122. Vide Notification No.05/2019 Central Excise-(N.T.), dated 21.08.2019, the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as SVLDRS Rules, 2019] was framed by the Central Government w.e.f. 01.09.2019. Rule 3 of the SVLDRS Rules, 2019 reads as under:- 3. Form of declaration under section 125 .- (1) The declaration under section 125 shall be made electronically at https://cbic-gst.gov.in in Form SVLDRS-1 by the declarant, on or before the 31st December, 2019. (2) A separate declaration shall be filed for each case. Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule, a "case" means - (a) a show cause notice, or one or more appeal arising out of such notice which is pending as on the 30th day of June, 2019; or (b) an amount in arrears; or (c) an enquiry or investigation or audit where the amount is quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; or (d) a voluntary disclosure. 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate forum, other than the Supreme Court or the High Court, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of any law for the time being in force, such appeal or reference or reply shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. (7) Where the declarant has filed a writ petition or appeal or reference before any High Court or the Supreme Court against any order in respect of the tax dues, the declarant shall file an application before such High Court or the Supreme Court for withdrawing such writ petition, appeal or reference and after withdrawal of such writ petition, appeal or reference with the leave of the Court, he shall furnish proof of such withdrawal to the designated committee, in such manner as may be prescribed, along with the proof of payment referred to in sub-section (5). (8) On payment of the amount indicated in the statement of the designated committee and production of proof of withdrawal of appeal, wherever applicable, the designated committee shall issue a discharge certificate in electronic form, within thirty days of the said payment and production of proof. 126. Ordinarily, a Service Tax assessee is required to file returns under Section 70 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. (3A)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), every assessee shall submit an annual return for the financial year to which the return relates, in such form and manner as may be specified in the notification in the Official Gazette by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, by the 30th day of November of the succeeding financial year; (3B) The Central Government may, subject to such conditions or limitations, specify by notification an assesse or class of assesses who may not be required to submit the annual return referred to in sub-rule(3A). (4) The Central Board of Excise and Customs may, by an order extend the period referred to in [sub-rules (2) and (3A) by such period as deemed necessary under circumstances of special nature to be specified in such order. 7A. Returns in case of taxable service provided by goods transport operators and clearing and forwarding agents : Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7, an assessee, in case of service provided by - (a) goods transport operator for the period commencing on and from the 16th day of November, 1997 to 2nd day of June, 1998; and (b) clearing and forwarding agents for the period commencin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) fifteen days from the date prescribed for submission of such return, an amount of five hundred rupees; (ii) beyond fifteen days but not later than thirty days from the date prescribed for submission of such return, an amount of one thousand rupees; and (iii) beyond thirty days from the date prescribed for submission of such return an amount of one thousand rupees plus one hundred rupees for every day from the thirty first day till the date of furnishing the said return: Provided that the total amount payable in terms of this rule, for delayed submission of return, shall not exceed the amount specified in section 70 of the Act: Provided further that where the assessee has paid the amount as prescribed under this rule for delayed submission of return, the proceedings, if any, in respect of such delayed submission of return shall be deemed to be concluded. [Provided also that where the gross amount of service tax payable is nil, the Central Excise officer may, on being satisfied that there is sufficient reason for not filing the return, reduce or waive the penalty]. Explanation .- It is hereby declared that any pending proceedings under section 77 for delayed submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated is,- (A) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, sixty per cent. of the tax dues; (B) amount indicated is more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, forty per cent. of the tax dues; 130. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.11785 of 2020, an audit was in progress. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12957 of 2020an investigation was in progress when the SVLDRS,2019 was announced. As mentioned elsewhere, the respective petitioners have been issued with Show Cause Notices subsequently. 131. The expression "tax dues" has been defined in Section 123 of the SVLDR Scheme 2019. The expression "tax due" as defined Section 123 of the SVLDR Scheme, 2019 includes "amount in arrears" as defined in Section 121(c). Section 124(1)(c) deals with the relief to be given in case of "amount in arrears". 132. In these two cases it cannot be said that the respective petitioners were entitled for the relief under Section 124(1)(d) fully. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 11785 of 2020 is partly covered by the situation in Sec. 121(g) read with Sec. 123(c), Sec. 124(1)(d)(ii) and the exception in Sec. 125(1)(e) to the extent covered by the quantification in letter dated 24.10.2018. 133. Whereas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or investigation or audit is pending against the declarant, the amount of duty payable under any of the indirect tax enactment which has been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 124. (1) Subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), the relief available to a declarant under this Scheme shall be calculated as follows:- (d) where the tax dues are linked to an enquiry, investigation or audit against the declarant and the amount quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 is- (i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent. of the tax dues; (ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per cent. of the tax dues; ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION OR AUDIT 125. (1) All persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the following, namely:- (e) who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit has not been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; 136. Thus, a person is not entitled to avail the benefit of SVLDRS, 2019, if there was no quantification of tax or duty liability where there was either inquiry, investigat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enquiry or investigation or audit under indirect tax enactment and I want to make a voluntary disclosure regarding Ans. No, you are not eligible to make a declaration under the voluntary disclosure category as per section 125(1)(f)(i). the same. Am I eligible for the Scheme? 144. As far as FAQ 45 is concerned, it has been clarified with written communication will include a letter intimating duty/tax demand or duty/tax liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit or audit report etc. However, if enquiry, Investigation or Audit is over, against an assessee, there is no question of availability SVLDRs' 2019. 145. In other words, during the course of enquiry investigation or audit, a person can file a Declaration under SVLDR, 2019 provided there is a proper quantification of tax liability on or before 30.06.2019. However, mere filing of a Declaration ipso facto will not mean that the enquiry, investigation or audit has to be stopped. If the amount quantified is correct, such quantification can be accepted. However, if enquiry, investigation or audit is complete, where there is no quantification, there is no scope for filing Declaration. 146. Thus,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dues" as follows:- Out put Tax Input Tax Total tax payable Erection & Commission 1,81,21,365.92 10,95,571.38 1,70,25,794.54 Work Contractors 4,38,984.00 4,38,984.00 Swachh Bharat Cess - 0.5% 6,62,869.64 6,62,869.64 Krishkalayan 6,62,869.64 6,62,869.64 Out put Tax Input Tax Total tax payable Cess - 0.5% 1,98,86,089.20 10,95,571.38 1,87,90,517.82 Payment paid via HDFC Net banking 27.04.2017 5,38,718.00 31.05.2017 47,25,000.00 - --------------- 52,63,718.00 ------------------ 1,35,26,799.82 ------------------ 154. The Petitioner appears to have paid a sum of Rs.52,63,718 through Net Banking on the above dates. Subsequently, the petitioner claims to have paid a sum of Rs.1,07,88,041/- on the following dates: Challan Date Amount 04.02.2019 58,00,000 17.05.2019 49,88,041 155. In all the petitioner claims to have paid a sum of Rs.1,71,47,330/- (Rs.1,60,51,759/- + input tax liability of Rs.10,95,571/-) leaving a balance of Rs.27,38,759/- as tax due. 156. During the course of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sum of Rs.1,71,47,330/- (Rs.1,60,51,759 + input tax liability of Rs.10,95,571/-) in cash before the audit and partly during the course of the audit, and before the implementation of SVLDRS, 2019 with effect from 01.09.2019. A sum of Rs.5,00,722/- was paid after the implementation of SVLDRS, 2019. The payment details are given below: Service Amount paid before the Audit began on 25.09.2018 Amount paid during the course of Audit Amount paid after SVLDRS came into force on 01.09.2019 Works Contract Service Date Amount in Rs. Date Amount in Rs. Date Amount in Rs. 27.04.2017 5,38,718 04.02.2019 58,00,000 22.10.2019 20,600 31.05.2017 47,25,000 17.05.2019 49,88,041 19.11.2019 4,50,557 19.11.2019 29,565 Total 52,63,718 1,07,88,041 5,00,722 160. The details furnished by the petitioner in its communication dated 24.10.2018 and the information in the Show Cause Notice dated 26.02.2022indicate that the petitioner did not make a complete disclosure. There was no proper quantification of the tax due by the petitioner for the entire period between March 2016 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne 2017 alone. The show cause proceedings initiated subsequently on 26.02.2020 cannot be scuttled by the petitioner for demands made earlier starting from March 2016 to June 2017. To that extent, the petitioner is not entitled to settle the case. W.P.No. 12957 of 2020 167. We shall now take up W.P.No.12957 of 2020. 168. The petitioner has been issued the Show Cause Notice No.47 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020by the second respondent, the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence. 169. The petitioner has challenged Show Cause Notice No.47 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020by the second respondent, the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence in W.P.No. 3320 of 2022. The petitioner has also challenged Central Government Notification No.22/2014-Service Tax dated 16.09.2014 in W.P.No.3322 of 2022. 170. We have already held that the challenge to Central Government Notification No.22/2014-Service Tax dated 16.09.2014 is without merits. Therefore, challenge to the Show Cause Notice No.47 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020 issued by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of Good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsfer of Development Right (TDR) and construction services provided to M/s. Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) alone. 177. The aforesaid sum of Rs.37,08,90,328/- quantified by the petitioner on 07.05.2019 in response to the summons dated 23.04.2019 covers the purported liability of the petitioner for the period between 2014-15 to June 2017 as against Rs.37,84,41,930/- as quantified in the Show Cause Notice No.47 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020 issued by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence. 178. The case of the petitioner is thus partly covered under Section 124(1)(c)(iii)(A) for the period 2014-15, 2015-16 and 1st half of 2016-17 as the returns were filed on 10.05.2017, 19.11.2018 and 11.01.2019 admitting the tax liability of Rs.12,99,13,633/-, Rs.8,35,56,989/- and Rs.2,49,88,012 respectively before the cut off date i.e. 30.06.2019. 179. Relevant respective clauses from Section 121(c) and 123(e) are produced below:- Definition Tax Dues Relief 121(c) of SVLDRS, 2019. Section:-123(e). - For the purposes of the Scheme, "tax dues" means - Section 124 Relief available under Scheme. - (1) Subject to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot quantified either in the ST-3 Returns and/or in the letter dated 7.5.2019 before the implementation of SVLDRS,2019. 185. However, it would not disentitle the petitioner from the purview of SVLDRS, 2019 for the amount remaining unpaid as per the admission in the ST-3 Returns prior to the implementation of SVLDRS, 2019. 186. An overall reading of the facts indicate that the returns filed by the petitioner for the period 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (1st half) falls within the meaning of the phrase "amount in arrears" in Section 121(c)(iii) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. 187. Thus, if at all, the petitioner may be entitled to any relie underm SVLDRS, 2019, it would be confined to the relief under Section 124(1)(c)(iii)(A), of the SVLDRS, 2019, provided the amount of Rs.23,84,58,634/- was not paid before its implementation. In the result, the petitioner was entitled to settle the case under SVLDRS, 2019 on the amounts which were not declared in the returns filed on 10.05.2017, 19.11.2018 and 11.01.2019 but quantified in the letter dated 7.5.2019. 188. To the extent there was no quantification, before 30.06.2019 in the letter dated 7.5.2019, no rel....