TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the appellant believed that the service tax was not chargeable. 2. On 09.09.2019, summons were issued to the appellant by the Intelligence Officers, STI, Ghaziabad in respect of inquiry against M/s. Safe & Secure Online Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (SSOMPL). Thereafter, another summons were issued to the appellant also in respect of SSOMPL dated 17.09.2019. These summons were never served on the appellant, which were sent to his Jaipur address. The appellant was a tenant at the Jaipur address from 2nd May, 2016 to 03.11.2018, as has been confirmed by his landlord. The appellant suo moto filed declaration on 27.09.2019 in Form SVLDRS-I under the category of 'voluntary Disclosure'. Thereafter, Form SVLDRS-III was issued by the Revenue on 28.10.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and the appellant have applied for settlement by filing the prescribed form under SVLDR Scheme, after commencement of inquiry against him, hence it appears that the appellant have suppressed the facts from the Department regarding pending investigation against them. It was further urged that where assessee were under investigation and quantification of tax and duty is not done by 30.06.2019, were not eligible for availing the SVLDR Scheme, in the light of Section 125(1)(e) of Finance Act(2), 2019, which reads as -- "125(1)all persons shall be eligible to make a declaration under this scheme except the following viz. (a).............................................. (b).............................................................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons or inquiry was initiated against the appellant before 30.06.2019. Admittedly, no summons were served upon the appellant before filing of the declaration in Form-SVLDRS-I under the Scheme. Further, admittedly, no false statement has been found, nor any material particulars have been found to be false or otherwise. Thus, the denial of benefit of one time settlement under SVLDR Scheme is bad and against the provisions of law. The ld. Cousnel relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. New India Civil Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others in Writ Petition (L) No.989 of 2020, wherein Writ Petition had been filed for settlement under the Scheme, wherein pursuant to summons dated 19.12.2019, statement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich deals with tax dues for the purposes of the scheme, as per Clause (c) thereof where an inquiry or investigation or audit is pending against the declarant, the tax dues would mean the amount of duty payable, which had been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. Even in the context of eligibility under Section 125(1), we find that clause (e) thereof clarifies that any person subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said inquiry or investigation or audit had not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019 would not be eligible to make a declaration. Therefore, whenever and wherever the scheme talks about an enquiry or investigation or audit, the date 30.06.2019 carries considerable significance and ....