TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme,2013 (VCES) vide letter dated 24-9-2013, further amended by letter dated 02-12-2013, revising the tax dues for the period July 2012 to December 2012 as Rs.29,40,712/-. 3. On verification of records, the Department noticed that since the appellant had not paid service tax on the royalty amount received from the Assaying and Hallmark centres, the appellant had been earlier issued nine show cause notices (SCNs) periodically, demanding service tax under intellectual property service covering the period from 01-09-2004 to 31-03-2012. Out of these nine SCNs, 4 SCNs covering the period 01-09-2004 to 31-07-2009, were adjudicated and the demands confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved, the Appellant had filed appeals before the Tribunal which were then pending decision. The remaining 5 SCNs covering the period 0108-2009 to 31-03-2012 were pending adjudication. 4. The Department was of the opinion that in terms of second proviso to section 106 (1) VCES, no declaration shall be made on the same issue for any subsequent period where a notice or order of determination has been issued to the declara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., VCES, Service Tax, 2014 (34), STR, 165 (DEL), to contend that since that for the particular distinct period of July 2012 to December 2012, the subject matter of declaration, the issue is not pending the declaration ought not to have been rejected. The decision has been maintained in 2021 (41), GSTL J 51 SC, when the SLP preferred by the Revenue was disposed of. The Ld. counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. Ms. G Krupa, Ld. Authorised Representative, appearing for the Respondent, while reiterating the findings of the learned appellate authority, contended that it is clear from the facts on record that all the show cause notices issued to the appellant were only with regard to non-payment of service tax on royalty charges. Ld. A.R would contend that prior to 01-07-2012, these services had a specific nomenclature, whereas post 01-07-2012, there was no specific classification. While the appellant agrees to their liability post 01-07-2012, they disagree for the liabilities raised prior to 01-07-2012. The common issue in all the notices both pre and post 01-7-2012 was that the appellant had not paid service tax on royalty charges received by them, and there has been no c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns prescribed by rules made under this Scheme; (e) "tax dues" means the service tax due or payable under the Chapter or any other amount due or payable under section 73A thereof, for the period beginning from the 1st day of October, 2007 and ending on the 31st day of December, 2012 including a cess leviable thereon under any other Act for the time being in force, but not paid as on the 1st day of March, 2013. (2) Words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Chapter or the rules made thereunder shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Chapter or the rules made thereunder. Person who may make declaration of tax dues. 106. (1) Any person may declare his tax dues in respect of which no notice or an order of determination under section 72 or section 73 or section 73A of the Chapter has been issued or made before the 1st day of March, 2013: Provided that any person who has furnished return under section 70 of the Chapter and disclosed his true liability, but has not paid the disclosed amount of service tax or any part thereof, shall not be eligible to make declaration for the period covered by the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said date. 2. Bearing the above in mind, when we examine section 106 reproduced above, it can be seen that the said section deals with persons who may make declaration of tax dues. Sub-section (1) of Section 106 spells out the tax dues in respect of which any person can declare and specifies such tax dues to be those in respect of which no notice or an order of determination under Section 72,73 or 75 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 has been issued or made before 1st March, 2013. The first proviso to sub-section (1) makes a person who has furnished return under Section 70 and disclosed his true liability, but not paid the disclosed amount of service tax or part thereof, ineligible to make a declaration for the period covered by the said return. The second proviso to sub-section (1) further provides that where a notice or order of determination has been issued to a person in respect of any period on any issue, no declaration shall be made of his tax dues on the same issue for any subsequent period. 3. In other words, the first proviso which makes a person who has furnished his return disclosing his true liability but has not paid the disclosed amount or part ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent negative list based tax regime or for that matter the Honourable Tribunal has waived the deposit and stayed the recovery do not make any difference as to the fact that on the same issue show cause notices have been issued for the previous periods. Hence the declaration clearly attracts second proviso to Section 106 (1) of the act..." 16. We are unable to concur with the aforesaid finding as we see that the Ld. Appellate Authority has approached the issue on the premise that service tax is payable on royalty, i.e. premised on the nomenclature of the consideration without examining how the charge of service tax was attracted for the period prior to 01-072012 and for the period for which the Appellant filed the declaration. 17. Prior to 01-07-2012, the charge of service tax as per Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 was on the taxable services of the various sub-clauses of clause (105) of Section 65 at the specified percentage rate of the value of the taxable services, collected in such manner as prescribed. Therefore, what constituted taxable services were defined under clause (105) of Section 65, which stipulated that " 'taxable service' means any service provided or to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 66B also stipulated that the charge of service tax was on all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed at the specified percentage rate on their value. In other words, the definition of "service" was a "catch all" definition, save for the exceptions, and the charge of service tax was on all 'services' other than those specified in the negative list. In such circumstances, it was a non-issue whether or not "Hallmark" was an "intellectual property" or whether the appellant was a holder of an "intellectual property right" and whether the appellant as a holder of "intellectual property right" was providing a service in relation to intellectual property service. All that mattered was merely whether the Appellant was providing a 'service' as defined under Section 65B (44), and whether or not the said 'service' was one that was specified in the negative list. Given the nature of the definition of 'service' and the charge under Section 66B, the mere allowing the Hallmarking/Assaying Centres to administer the BIS Scheme upo....