2023 (2) TMI 669

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sive amount for issuance of the discharge certificate. 3. The Petitioner provides manpower recruitment supply agency services. An investigation was carried out by Service Tax Commissionerate in respect of services provided by the Petitioner on the premise that the Petitioner was not disclosing service tax on the total consideration received, including wages of the manpower reimbursed. Five show cause notices were issued to the Petitioner that is for the period from January 2009 to September 2009, October 2009 to September 2010, October 2010 to March 2011, April 2011 to September 2011, and October 2012 to March 2013, claiming the total service tax dues to the tune of Rs.1,94,97,927/-. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner raised a deb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s already paid Rs.55,06,021/- for the period from October 23012 to March 2013, and the Petitioner should be given benefit thereof. The Petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued Form SVLDRS-3 confirming the demand of Rs.87,47,432/-. According to the Petitioner, since the Scheme was closing, the Petitioner had no option but to pay Rs.87,47,432/- which the Petitioner did and was issued a discharge certificate through SVLDRS-4 on 8 May 2020. Being aggrieved by the action of Respondent No.2 of not giving due credit to the deposit of Rs.55,06,021/-, the Petitioner has approached this Court, praying that Rs.55,06,021 be returned to the Petitioner. A reply affidavit has been filed by the Respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntitled to the benefit of the scheme. It is stated that having submitted a misdeclaration of Rs.1,19,88,843/- instead of Rs.1,74,94,864/- and since the Petitioner has produced no evidence in respect of the deposit of Rs.55,06,021/-, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less any relief of refund of the amount already paid in light of section 130 of the Act. 6. The Petitioner has sought to point out before us that the facts on record indicate that the amount of Rs.55,06,021/- has been deposited as pre-deposit. First, our attention is drawn to the second part of the order in appeal where the Petitioner's statement having deposited the amount of Rs.55,06,021/- towards the total confirmed demand of Rs.174,94,864/- is recorded, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner had sought to bring to the notice of the Designated Committee. Since the Scheme itself makes a provision for adjustment of any amount paid as pre-deposit and since it was the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner demonstrated through evidence that an amount of Rs.55,06,021/- was already paid by the Petitioner and should have been considered as pre-deposit or deposit during the enquiry, the Designated Authority ought to have examined this aspect carefully. In a given case, if a declarant is able to show that deposit or pre-deposit, as the case may be, has been made, then such a declarant is entitled to an adjustment or reduction of the amount to be paid under the Scheme and for receipt of the discharge certificate in respect of....