TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a work contractor and was liable to pay tax on the abated value during the period between 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 up to June 2017. 4. As per the petitioner, the tax due for the aforesaid three periods are as under:- Year Value as per Form 26 AS Abatement 60% Taxable Value 40% Total tax Payable Service Tax already paid Balance to be paid in SVLSDRS 2015- 2016 9385314.55 5631189.00 3754126.00 544349.00 364433.00 179916.00 2016- 2017 9313927.50 5588357.00 3725571.00 558836.00 374963.00 183873.00 2017- 2018 up to June '17 7870192 4722115.00 3148077.00 472211.00 310939.00 161272.00 26569434.05 15941661.00 10627774.00 15,75,396.00 10,50,335.00 525061.00 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government had announced Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019, which gave an opportunity for defaulters to settle their dispute by offering to pay the tax and therefore, the petitioner filed an application on 31.12.2019, which was the last date as per the scheme, which was later extended to 15.01.2020. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was required to pay 100% tax in terms of Section 124-1(e) of the Act. It is therefore submitted that the tax determined by the petitioner as payable under the aforesaid scheme was incorrect and therefore even if Form SVLDRS-3 was issued accepting the declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 of the petitioner, the respondents are entitled to reject the application in terms of Section 129-2 (c) of the aforesaid scheme. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition. 12. That apart, it is submitted that the extension granted by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide a Notification dated 14.05.2020 was applicable only to those persons, who were required to pay the amount between 20.03.2020 and 29.06.2020 and since the due date for the petitioner expired on 12.02.2020, the belated attempt of the petitioner to pay the amount on 16.03.2020 also would not come to the petitioner's rescue. It is therefore submitted that the benefit of the above scheme is not applicable to the petitioner. 13. The learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No.541 of 2021 (M/S. Yashi Construction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This is evident from a reading of Section 125 and Section 126 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019, which reads as under: Section 125 Section 126 125. (1) All persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this Scheme except the following, namely:- (a) who have filed an appeal before the appellate forum and such appeal has been heard finally on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; (b) who have been convicted for any offence punishable under any provision of the indirect tax enactment for the matter for which he intends to file a declaration; (c) who have been issued a show cause notice, under indirect tax enactment and the final hearing has taken place on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; (d) who have been issued a show cause notice under indirect tax enactment for an erroneous refund or refund; (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; (f) a person making a voluntary disclosure,- (i) after being subjected to any enquiry or investigation or audit; or (ii) having filed a return under the indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter for a subsequent time period; or (ii) for a different matter for the same time period; (c) in a case of voluntary disclosure where any material particular furnished in the declaration is subsequently found to be false, within a period of one year of issue of the discharge certificate, it shall be presumed as if the declaration was never made and proceedings under the applicable indirect tax enactment shall be instituted." 19. As per Section 124(1)(e) Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Act, 2019, in case of "voluntarily disclosure", a declarant is not entitled for any concession as is evident from reading of said provision. It reads as under: "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:- (a) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice which is pending as on the 30th day of June, 2019, and if the amount of duty 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; (b) where the tax dues ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnished in the declaration is subsequently found to be false, within a period of one year of issue of the discharge certificate, it shall be presumed as the declaration was never made and the proceedings and the applicable indirect tax enactment shall be instituted. Section 129 reads as under: "129. (1) Every discharge certificate issued under Section 126 with respect to the amount payable under this Scheme shall be conclusive as to the matter and time period stated therein, and- (a) the declarant shall not be liable to pay any further duty, interest, or penalty with respect to the matter and time period covered in the declaration; (b) the declarant shall not be liable to be prosecuted under the indirect tax enactment with respect to the matter and time period covered in the declaration; (c) no matter and time period covered by such declaration shall be reopened in any other proceeding under the indirect tax enactment. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) no person being a party in appeal, application, revision or reference shall contend that the central excise officer has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by issuing the disch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has culminated in Order in Original No. KVPT-ST-000 AC-05/2021 dated 30.11.2021, wherein, the following order has been passed: ORDER i. I confirm the demand of Rs.28,88,010/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand and Ten only) being the short paid Service Tax amount payable on the taxable income of "Works Contract Service" received by Shri.Shanmugam Kandasamy of M/s.Balaji Electrical Engineering for the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017 under the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994; ii. I demand interest at appropriate rate under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 from the service provider Shri.Shanmugam Kandasamy on the payment of Service Tax confirmed at Sl.No.(i) above; iii. I impose penalty of Rs.28,88,010/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand and Ten only) under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; Further, in terms of second proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, if the service tax and interest, determined at S.Nos. (i) and (ii) above, are paid within a period of thirty days of the date of receipt of this order, then the penalty payable shall be 25% of the service tax so determined/confirmed under Sl.No.(i) above, ....