TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 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 indicated was only Rs. 1/- and we are unable to understand why petitioner did not choose to pay the amount and close the file. Instead, as we would note, petitioner has willingly chosen to take an arduous route and is now ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 22,00,414/- as service tax for Financial Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. 3. It is stated in the petition that petitioner conducted an internal audit and found that the amount of Rs. 22,00,414/- was short paid. Petitioner thereafter, decided to take advantage of Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDRS) and filed a declaration in Form-1 under the voluntary disclosure category declaring a sum of Rs. 16,04,367/-. This declaration was filed on 6th November 2019. This was accepted by respondents and petitioner was called upon to make the payment within 30 days. Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Jour HR Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India 2020 (9) TMI 9 (Delhi), that petitioner's unilateral letter will not amount to quantification of the tax liability. Ms. Date also relied upon a judgment of this Court in JSW Steel Limited v/s. Union of India and Ors. 2021 (10) TMI 990 (Bom.). 9. Both the judgments relied upon by Ms. Date will not be applicable to the facts of this case. In Chaque Jour HR Services Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), petitioner had not quantified the entire tax dues. In that case, petitioner 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thus, petitioner's tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52. We have one more reason to take such a view. As has rightly been declared by the Hon'ble Finance Minister and what is clearly deducible from the statement of object and reasons, the scheme is a one time measure for liquidation of past disputes of central excise and service tax as well as to ensure disclosure of unpaid taxes by a person eligible to make a declaration. The basic thrust of the scheme is to unload the baggage of pending litigations centering around service tax and excise duty. Therefore the focus is to unload this baggage of pre-GST regime and allow business to move ahead. We are thus in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in Vaishali Sharma Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1529/2020 that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the scheme as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under central excise and service tax and to allow the business to make a fresh beginning. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 54. As discussed above, though the scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aration in terms of the scheme he mentioned the duty payable as Rs. 40,91,524.00 which amount corresponds to the quantification arrived 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 discussed above, though the scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand, the primary focus as succinctly put across by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in her budget speech is to unload the ....