TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Registration No. AACCD2602EST001 and has paid service tax under Maintenance or Repair and Erection commission services. 2.2. The Central Government introduced an Amnesty Scheme Titled 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' (hereinafter referred to as "SVLDRS") to provide an opportunity for settlement of legacy cases pertaining to indirect taxes such as Central Excise, Service Tax etc. 2.3. In terms of the said scheme, Petitioner Company made a Declaration on 23.11.2019 under the Voluntary Disclosure category declaring an amount of Rs. 46,90,842/- towards Service Tax due for the period April 2014 to June 2017 vide Form SVLDRS-1 as quantified and submitted by the Petitioner Company to the Third Respondent vide letter dated 09.10.2019. The First Respondent accepted the aforesaid declaration and issued the Discharge Certificate vide Form SVLDRS-4 dated 08.04.2020 after the payment made by the Petitioner Company as per the statement issued by the First Respondent vide Form SVLDRS-3 dated 22.01.2020. 2.4. In the meanwhile petitioner Company received a Summon dated 26.09.2019 from the Senior Intelligence Officer, Madurai, calling for documents relating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S.No. Event Date 1 Investigation Initiated 26.09.2019 2 SVLDRS 1 filed by the petitioner under voluntary disclosure category 23.11.2019 3 SVLDRS 3 issued for payment of Rs. 46,90,842/- 22.01.2020 4 Payment made by the petitioner 13.02.2020 5 SVLDRS 4 issued by the Designated Committee 08.04.2020 6 SVLDRS Rejection Communication by the Designated Committee 17.08.2020 7 SCN No.35/2021 issued to the petitioner by the DGGSTI, Madurai for an amount of Rs. 1,00,86,156/- 22.10.2021 4.1. That the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the facts about the initiation of investigation by the department in the Declaration filed under the Scheme. Once the declaration is found to contain a mis declaration the entire proceedings under the Scheme is reduced to a nullity and question of complying with natural justice does not arise. 5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 6. The impugned order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the impugned order proceeds on the erroneous premise that since an investigation was initiated prior to filing of the declaration by the petitioner under the Scheme, the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation had not been quantified on or before 30-6-2019 would not be eligible to make a declaration. Clause (e) is just above clause (1) which deals with voluntary disclosure. As we have seen, clause (e) says that a person who has been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said enquiry or investigation or audit had not been quantified on or before 30-6-2019 would not be eligible to make a declaration. Immediately following clause (e) is clause (1) which says that a person making a voluntary declaration after being subjected to any enquiry or investigation or audit would not be eligible to make a declaration. If clauses (e) and (f) are to be read in a harmonious manner then logically it follows that the enquiry or investigation or audit referred to in clause (1)(1) would necessarily have to be initiated on or before 30-6-2019. ..... 28. ..... The enquiry or investigation or audit should commence prior to 30-6-2019. Though clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 125 does not mention the date 30-6-2019 by simply saying that a person making a voluntary d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the Scheme has adopted, in several instances, the 30th of June 2019 as a watershed for various purposes, including determination of tax dues/arrears. 12. The argument of the respondent is that had it been the intention of legislature that 30.06.2019 be adopted for the purposes of Section 125(f), it would have so stipulated in that clause itself. This is certainly a possible argument. In cases involving the interpretation of a beneficial scheme/exemption notification, the accepted Rule is that the scheme be interpreted strictly in line with the avowed and stated intention thereof. Seen in the light, clause 125(f) of the scheme must be read as is, without the addition of the date, 30.06.2019. However, this is not to be, as the interpretation of the Goods and Services Tax Department is itself contrary to that position. 13. Written instructions from the office of the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Belapur in F.No.V/HLC/Bel- GST/MISC/2020-21 dated 22.05.2023, make it clear that pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 31.01.2022, the Bombay Commissionerate has accepted the order on 18.01.2022 'on merit'. The Designated committee ....