TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JUDGMENT (PER K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) : 1. Director of petitioner one Muthukrishnan Iyyappan appeared as party in person. Therefore, we requested Mr. Raichandani to be the Amicus Curiae. Before we proceed with the case, we must express our appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth by Mr. Raichandani, learned Amicus Curiae, for it has been of immense value in rendering the judgment. 2. On or about 5th April 2019 petitioner received an email from GST audit team stating that there was a service tax paid and payable mismatch for Financial Years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 and directed petitioner to produce documents for the said period. Petitioner was also requested to pay the difference immediately. The difference indic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is not covered under 'Investigation' category. It is ineligible as per Section 125 (1) (e) read with Sec 121 (r) of the Scheme. Further, as per Section 127 (2) and (3), only in case of difference in tax dues declared & 'estimates' arrived by Designated Committee, PH may be granted. Hence, your request for PH could not be accepted. 5. It is petitioner's case that by a letter dated 6th May 2019 petitioner informed respondents that the service tax for Financial Year 2014-2015 upto 2017-2018 was short paid due to a calculation error and the amount totals to Rs. 22,00,414/-. A copy of the letter dated 6th May 2019, for ease of reference, is scanned and reproduced hereinbelow : 6. As regards the hand written notes, petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had only admitted service tax liability and did not make any disclosure with respect to the other tax dues. In the case of JSW Steel Limited (Supra), the Court came to a finding that petitioner has not been able to demonstrate and/or there was nothing on record to indicate that the duty liability is admitted by petitioner. In the case before us, by its letter dated 6th May 2019 petitioner has admitted a sum of Rs. 22,00,414/- as payable and respondents in its letter dated 5th August 2019 called upon petitioner to pay that amount. In Thought Blurb (Supra) also respondent no.3, i.e., the Department, in its letter before the cut off date of 30th June 2019 quantified the service tax liability for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the person during enquiry, investigation or audit etc. This has been also explained in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) prepared by the department on 24th December, 2019. 49. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that on the one hand there is a letter of respondent No.3 to the petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 at Rs. 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of Rs. 10,74,011.00 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns in respect of service tax and central excise from pre-GST regime so that the business can move on. This was also the view expressed by the Board in the circular dated 27th August, 2019 wherein all the officers and staff working under the Board were called upon to partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success which in turn will enable the administrative machinery to fully focus in the smooth implementation of GST. This is the broad picture which the officials must have in mind while considering an application (declaration) seeking amnesty under the scheme. The approach should be to ensure that the scheme is successful and therefore, a liberal view embedded with the principles of natural justice is called for. 55. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at by respondent No.4 post 30th June, 2019 at Rs. 40,91,524.00. When petitioner had admitted duty liability of a slightly higher figure much before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019, it would be too technical and narrow an approach to reject the declaration of the petitioner on the ground that the said figure was arrived at by the respondents after 30th June, 2019. In our view such an approach would defeat the very object of the scheme which is liquidation of past disputes of central excise and service tax so that trade and industry can move on while at the same time the administrative machinery can fully focus in the smooth implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST). In Thought Blurb (supra) it was held as under :- "54. As disc....