2025 (11) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the period from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. The Petitioner responded on 9 December 2013 in which he pointed out that the major portion of the demand had already been remitted before the issuance of the show-cause notice. After this, the Petitioner was issued another show-cause notice-cum-demand notice dated 28 March 2014, this time demanding service tax of Rs.17,04,400/- along with interest and penalty for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013. 5. On 27 March 2018, the 3rd Respondent made the Order-in-Original confirming the demands proposed in show-cause notices dated 13 June 2013 and 28 March 2014. The Petitioner contends that its submissions regarding the amounts already paid or pre-deposited amounts were not considered. 6. The Petitioner appealed the Order-in-Original dated 27 March 2018 on 4 July 2018. While the Appeal was pending, 'The Sabka Vishwas' (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 i.e. Chapter V of the Finance Act, 2019 entered forced vide notification dated 21 August 2019. 7. The Petitioner on 27 November 2019 applied under SVLDRS by pointing out that its Appeal was pending before the CESTAT. 8. On 9 December 2019, the Petitioner wrote to the Respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice tax liability of Rs.2,25,31,804/- vide several documents and correspondence. She pointed out that full opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to produce challans. She pointed out how, by the communication of 9 December 2019, challans of only Rs.11 Lakhs were produced. She pointed out that the term of the scheme is finite and the scheme ended on 15 January 2020. She submitted that there are no provisions to extend the term of such scheme. She submitted that no challans were produced evidencing pre-deposits or recoveries and in any event, there was no obligation for considering the documents belatedly produced. For all these reasons, including primarily the correspondences, which, according to Ms. Cardozo, show admissions on the Petitioner's part, the Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs as sought for in this Petition. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the record. Upon evaluation of the contentions on the record, we are satisfied that in this case, the challans produced by the Petitioner on 9 December 2019 and 16 December 2019 were required to be considered by the authorities before issuing impugned SVLDRS-3. 16. Admittedly, the scheme ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-09 to 2011-12 should not be demanded and recovered from them in terms of the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, invoking the extended period of time; (ii) Service Tax amounting Rs. 80,95,307/- (Rupees Eighty lakhs Ninety Five thousand and Three hundred seven only) should not be appropriated as the said amount recovered from the assessee during the course of investigation." 20. The above quoted portion of the show-cause-cum-demand notice dated 13 June 2013, at least prima facie, suggest that an amount of Rs. 80,95,307/- was recovered from the Assessee during the course of investigations. The show-cause notice only refers to appropriation of this recovered amount towards service tax liabilities referred to in paragraph 10. 21. At this stage, we are not recording any firm findings either on the aspect of recoveries during investigations or pre-deposits for which the Petitioner relies upon the challans furnished on 9 December 2019 and 16 December 2019. All that we say is that these aspects were required to be considered by the concerned Respondents when determining the amount in Form SVLDRS-3 issued on 26 December 2019. This material, in the form of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthenticate, (2) to confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit; to swear to the truth of. 25. The Co-ordinate Bench observed that it was a settled principle of interpretation that the words and expressions used in a legislation must take their colour from the context in which they appear for ascertaining the true meaning of words and expressions used in a legislation. It is therefore necessary that the legislation must be read or understood as a whole. The Co-ordinate Bench held that the central focus of the scheme is settlement of legacy disputes by offering incentives to the declarant, subject no doubt to the aspect of eligibility. The designated committee, therefore, has to perform its duty of verifying the correctness of the declaration keeping this central objective in mind. The verification required to be carried out by the designated committee is not an adjudicatory exercise or an appellate exercise. Therefore, the verification of a declaration by a designated committee need not be confined to the show cause-cum-demand notice or the Order-in-Original. The mandate of the designated committee is to verify the correctness of the declaration based on the particular....