Savitri Leasing & Finance Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & CGST
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 263 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 3-12-2018
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/52834/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 53345/2018
Service Tax
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Mr. Rahul Lekhwani, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Mr. K. Poddar & Mr. S. Nunthuk, DRs
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
The appellant herein are engaged in providing renting of immovable property services and have got themselves registered on 26.02.2007. The appellant under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme dated 30.12.2013 had filed VCES-I declaring the tax dues of Rs. 4,50,756/- against renting of immovable property services for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2010 vide challan No. 50518 dated 28.12.13. On examination of the said VCES-I, the Department observed that the tax dues declared by the appellant were for the subsequent period on the same issue fo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
by the Department relying upon second proviso to Section 106(1) of Finance Act, 2013 on the ground that it involved the same issue for the subsequent period as of that involved in Show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2011, consequent to audit conducted in case of the assesse. It is submitted that the issue for the Show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2011 and for the present Show Cause Notice dated 25.02.2014 is absolutely different except that both the Show Cause Notices are about the liability of renting of immovable property services by the appellant. It is impressed upon that the same category of service cannot be considered as the same issue which has been wrongly interpreted by the Department. It is further submitted that the Show Cause Notice is otherwise beyond the normal period of one year of the limitation and there was no intention of the appellant to evade the duty, extended period could not be invoked. Show Cause Notice is therefore barred by time and thus is liable to be set aside on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nder 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 said return:
Provided further that where a notice or any 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.”
Section 106 is an enabling provision which deals in a situation where a particular class of assesse is liable to take advantage of the VCES Scheme and submit a declaration. Under this Section, any person may declare his tax dues in respect of which no notice or an Order of determination under Sections as mentioned above has been issued or made before first day of March 2013. It further provides that where a notice or Order of determination has been issued to any person that person is debarred to avail the benefit of Scheme. Ld. Counsel for t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1.03.2010. Vide the impugned VCES-I, the appellant has declared his tax dues of Rs. 4,50,756 against the renting of immovable property services for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2010. This perusal makes it clear that it is not merely that the category of service rendered is same but the allegation of not discharging the tax liability for rendering the said service and that the period for the alleged default is also same. Thus it becomes clear that a notice has already been issued to the appellant in respect of the same issue for the same period for which the appellant made the declaration under VCES-I. In view thereof I am of the firm opinion that the said declaration is prohibited under proviso 2 to Section 106(1) of VCES 2013. The Adjudicating Authority below are held to have committed no error while rejecting the said VCES Scheme. Order is held to have no infirmity. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
5. The argument of the appellant for Show Cause Notice to be barred by time
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =