Custom, Excise & Service Tax TribunalTara Chand Verma vs Commissioner, Cgst-Jaipur I on 2 March, 20231\n\n\n     CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n                        NEW DELHI.\n\n                       PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. II\n\n                      Service Tax Appeal No.51217 of 2022 (SM)\n\n (Arising    out      of     Order-in-Appeal No.374-375(SM)/ST/JPR/2021   dated\n 14.12.2021/16.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and\n Central Goods & Service Tax, Jaipur]\n\n Tara Chand Verma,                                               Appellant\n Flat No.104, Tower No.10, Royal Green Society,\n Sirsi Road,\n Jaipur, Rajasthan.\n                                         VERSUS\n\n Commissioner of Central Excise &                             Respondent\n Central Goods and Service Tax,\n NCRB, Statue Circle, C-Scheme,\n Jaipur, Rajasthan.\n\n\n\n APPEARANCE:\n\n Shri Yash Dhadda, Chartered Accountant for the appellant.\n Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent\n\n CORAM:\n\n HON'BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\n\n              FINAL ORDER NO.50296/2023\n\n                                     DATE OF HEARING/DECISION:02.03.2023\n\n\n ANIL CHOUDHARY:\n\n       The appellant, Shri Tara Chand Verma was engaged in providing\n\nservices as Direct Selling Agent of M/s. Safe & Secure Online Marketing\n\nPrivate Limited during April, 2014 to June, 2017. The gross turnover during\n\nthe said period were Rs.41,45,479/-, on which no service tax was paid, as the\n\nappellant believed that the service tax was not chargeable.\n\n2.     On 09.09.2019, summons were issued to the appellant by the\n\nIntelligence Officers, STI, Ghaziabad in respect of inquiry against M/s. Safe &\n\nSecure Online Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (SSOMPL). Thereafter, another summons\n                                         2\n\n\nwere issued to the appellant also in respect of SSOMPL dated 17.09.2019.\n\nThese summons were never served on the appellant, which were sent to his\n\nJaipur address. The appellant was a tenant     at the Jaipur address from 2nd\n\nMay, 2016 to 03.11.2018, as has been confirmed by his landlord. The\n\nappellant suo moto filed declaration on 25.09.2019 in Form SVLDRS-I under\n\nthe category of    'voluntary Disclosure'. Thereafter, Form SVLDRS-III was\n\nissued by the Revenue on 18.10.2019 directing the appellant to deposit\n\nRs.4,57,703/- towards service tax, which was deposited on 13.11.2019.\n\nThereafter, a discharge certificate dated 25.11.2019 in Form-SVLDRS-IV was\n\nissued by the Revenue under Sabka Vishwas Scheme.\n\n3.     Subsequently, Revenue issued a show cause notice via email dated\n\n12.11.2019 issued by DGGST        Intelligence GRU, Ghaziabad alleging short\n\npayment of service tax of Rs.5,07,439/- with further proposal to impose\n\npenalty for the period April, 2014 to June, 2017. The show cause notice was\n\nadjudicated on contest. The Asstt. Commissioner observed that the appellant\n\nhas admitted their service tax liability at Rs.4,57,703/- for the said period as\n\nper their own calculation and has discharged the tax liability in full under\n\nSVLDR Scheme, for which discharge certificate has been issued for full and\n\nfinal settlement of tax dues by the Designated Committee. It was also\n\nobserved that the appellant have discharged their tax liability under Sabka\n\nVishwas Scheme availing the benefit of threshold limit (SSI limit) as per\n\nNotification No.30/2012-ST, which was found to be in order. Accordingly, the\n\nAsstt. Commissioner held that the appellant have rightly declared the service\n\ntax payable under the SVLDR Scheme and accordingly, the show cause notice\n\nwas dropped observing no further action is warranted. Being aggrieved, the\n\nRevenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the\n                                                    3\n\n\nground that as DGGSTI, GRU, Ghaziabad had issued summons to the\n\nappellant and the appellant have applied for settlement by filing the\n\nprescribed     form under SVLDR Scheme, after commencement of inquiry\n\nagainst him, hence it appears that the appellant have suppressed the facts\n\nfrom the Department            regarding pending investigation against them. It was\n\nfurther urged that where assessee were under investigation and quantification\n\nof tax and duty is not done by 30.06.2019, were not eligible for availing the\n\nSVLDR Scheme, in the light ofSection 125(1)(e)of Finance Act(2), 2019,\n\nwhich reads as --\n\n       "125(1)all persons shall be eligible to make a declaration\n       under      this    scheme        except      the     following      viz.         -\n       (a)..............................................\n       (b)..............................................................................\n       ....................(c)...........................................................................(d)..............................................................................\n       ..............(e)    who       have    been      subjected        to   an     inquiry     and\n       investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in\n       the said inquiry or investigation or audit has not been\n       quantified on or before 3.06.2019.4.    It was further urged that in the facts of the present case, there was no\n\n quantification of duty/tax done before 30.06.2019. Further, urged that underSection 129(2)(c)of Finance Act, (2), 2019 in case of a voluntary disclosure,\n\n where any material furnished in the declaration is subsequently found to be\n\n false within a period of one year of discharge certificate, it shall be presumed\n\n as if the declaration was never made and the proceedings under the\n\n applicable indirect tax shall be instituted."45.    Ld. Commissioner allowed the appeal of the Revenue observing that\n\nthe intention of the assessee was to suppress the facts that the DGGSTI,\n\nGRU, Ghaziabad have issued summons before they applied for settlement\n\nunder SVLDR Scheme. Further, observed that the matter was underinvestigation and the quantification of duty /tax was not done by\n\n30.06.2019. Hence, the appellant/assessee was not eligible for avaidling the\n\nbenefit of SVLDR Scheme.      Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this\n\nTribunal.6.    Ld. Counsel for the appellant, inter alia,   urges that admittedly, no\n\nsummons or inquiry was initiated against the appellant before 30.06.2019.\n\nAdmittedly, no summons were served upon the appellant before filing of the\n\ndeclaration in Form-SVLDRS-I under the Scheme.       Further, admittedly, no\n\nfalse statement has been found, nor any material particulars have been\n\nfound to be false or otherwise. Thus, the denial of benefit of one time\n\nsettlement under SVLDR Scheme is bad and against the provisions of law.\n\nThe ld. Cousnel relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the\n\ncase of M/s.New India Civil Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and\n\nOthersin Writ Petition (L) No.989 of 2020, wherein Writ Petition had been\n\nfiled for settlement under the Scheme, wherein pursuant to summons dated\n\n19.12.2019, statement of Accountant and Legal Consultant was recorded,\n\nwherein, they had admitted service tax liability of Rs.94,26,823/- for the\n\nperiod 2015-2016 upto 30.06.2017. The Company, M/s. New India Civil\n\nErectors Pvt. Ltd. declared an amount of Rs.92,13,450/- as service tax dues\n\nunder SVLDR     Scheme, which was rejected vide communication through\n\nemail dated 29.01.2020 on the ground of ineligibility alleging pending inquiry\n\n/investigation. The Hon'ble   Bombay High Court allowing the Writ Petition5quashed the order refusing the benefit of the scheme, directing the\n\nDepartment to take a fresh decision on the declaration filed treating the\n\nsame as voluntary declaration under the Scheme. The Hon'ble High Court\n\nobserved as follows:-"27.1          A careful reading of the query and the answer\n    given thereto would make it clear that if an inquiry or\n    investigation      or audit was initiated on or before 30.06.2019\n    then such a person would not be eligible to make a declaration\n    under the voluntary disclosure category. "Logical corollary to\n    this would be that an inquiry or investigation or audit post\n    30.06.2019 would not act as a bar to filing of declaration under\n    the voluntary disclosure category."28.      If we read the scheme as a whole more particularly in\n    the context of an inquiry or investigation or audit, then we find\n    that the date 30.06.2019 is quite significant. We have already\n    noticed the definition of enquiry or investigation as perSection\n    121(m). Coming toSection 123of the Finance (No.2), Act,\n    2019, which deals        with tax dues for the purposes of the\n    scheme, as per Clause (c) thereof where an inquiry or\n    investigation or audit is pending against the declarant, the tax\n    dues would mean the amount of duty payable, which had been\n    quantified on or before 30.06.2019. Even in the context of\n    eligibility underSection 125(1), we find that clause (e) thereof\n    clarifies   that   any   person   subjected   to   an   enquiry   or\n    investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the\n    said inquiry or investigation or audit    had not been quantified\n    on or before 30.06.2019 would not be eligible to make a\n    declaration. Therefore, whenever and wherever the scheme\n    talks    about an enquiry or investigation or audit, the date\n    30.06.2019 carries       considerable significance      and becomes\n    relevant. The enquiry         or investigation     or audit should\n    commence        prior to 30.06.2019. Though Clause (f) of sub-\n    section (1) ofSection 125does not mention the date\n    30.06.2019 by simply saying that a person making a voluntary6disclosure    after   being   subjected   to   any   enquiry    or\n      investigation or audit would not be eligible to make a\n      declaration, the said provision if read and understood in the\n      proper context would mean making of a voluntary disclosure\n      after being subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit on\n      or before 30.06.2019. Such a view if taken would be a\n      reasonable construct consistent with the objective of the\n      scheme. "Accordingly, ld. Counsel prays for allowing their appeal with consequential\n\nbenefits.7.     Ld. Authorised Representative relies on the impugned order.8.     Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the issue herein is\n\nsquarely covered by the ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of\n\nM/s.New India Civil Erectors Pvt. Ltd.(supra). Further, I observe that\n\nno mis-declaration has been found in the declaration filed under the Scheme\n\nby the appellant. Further, no enquiry was pending against the appellant as\n\non the date of filing of the declaration under the scheme. Accordingly, I\n\nallow this appeal and set aside the impugned order-in-appeal. The order-in-\n\noriginal is restored. The appeal is allowed.[Operative portion of the order already pronounced in open court]\n\n\n\n\n                                                               (Anil Choudhary)\n                                                               Member (Judicial)\nCkp