By TIOL News Service

CHANDIGARH, DEC 19, 2015: THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Commissioner to issue discharge certificate to it qua the declaration under VCES filed and service tax paid for the period from 1.7.2010 to 31.12.2012. They have also sought directions to restrain the respondent from issuing summons and proceeding to make any investigation against the petitioner in respect of the records, documents, details, accounts etc. already filed in support of the declaration under the VCES and contend that the question of reopening the assessment for the period from 1.7.2010 to 31.12.2012 does not arise. It is also prayed that the summons dated 31.7.2015, dated 10.8.2015, dated 12.10.2015 and SCN dated 21.10.2015 be quashed.

The petitioner filed declaration dated 17.7.2013 under VCES-1, along with the computation of service tax liability under Section 107 of the Finance Act, 2013. Later, applicant-petitioner pointed out that the figure of service tax payable amounting to Rs. 11,31,37,122/- needs to be corrected to be Rs. 10,39,10,420/- as service tax rate during the financial year 2011-12 was 10% instead of 12% at which the tax was worked out in the declaration.

Respondent duly acknowledged the declaration filed and gave Form VCES-2 accepting the declaration and authorizing the petitioner to pay the amount in two equal installments of 50% each, first on or before 31.12.2013 and the next on or before 30.6.2014.

Before issuing the above acceptance in Form VCES-2, the respondent had called for report from the jurisdictional Superintendent and Range Officer who confirmed that no inquiry/ proceedings are pending against the petitioner.

Earlier, the petitioner was issued a letter dated 12.2.2013 by the Range Superintendent for filing all pending returns for service tax and the information regarding details of amount booked towards construction linked payments from 1.7.2010 onwards. Similar letters were also issued by the Superintendent on 5.9.2013 &8.10.2013.

Thereafter, a SCN dated 18.9.2013 was issued proposing to reject the VCES-1 declaration of the petitioner filed on 17.7.2013. Vide order dated 27.11.2013 the declaration was rejected.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWPand the High Court vide order dated 9.12.2013 opined that the order of rejection is appealable u/s 85, 86 of FA, 1994 & the WP was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal. [See 2013-TIOL-1016-HC-P&H-ST & 2015-TIOL-39-SC-ST]

The appeal filed was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide o-in-a dated 23.12.2013 ordered for acceptance of the declaration of the petitioner.

Thisorder was challenged by the revenue before the CESTAT.

By this time, the petitioner paid the service tax and sought certificate of discharge from respondent vide letter dated 26.12.2014 and also attached copies of the challans for payment of service tax aggregating to Rs. 10,39,10,421/-. The Respondent, after verification,informed that that a further sum of Rs. 26,000/- was to be paid and which the petitioner did vide letter dated 29.12.2014. However, discharge certificate was not issued by the respondent.

Be that as it may, in his statement dated 7.6.2013 the partner of the petitioner specifically stated that all the required records and documents for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12 have already been filed before the respondents; that Audit was carried out and a certificate dated 26.03.2014 was issued certifying that audit was completed. Thereafter, summons dated 31.7.2015, 10.8.2015 and 12.10.2015 were issued by respondent asking the petitioner to furnish all the records and documents which, incidentally, had already been furnished.

All this culminated in SCNdated 21.10.2015 for recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 16,53,38,730/- and a sum of Rs. 10,39,10,421/- already deposited by them against their liability be not appropriated along with interest.

Hence, the present writ petition.

The petitioner also submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a letter dated 26.12.2014 to respondent No.1, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

The High Court observed -

"4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to take a decision on the letter dated 26.12.2014 (Annexure P-15), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

As regards, challenge to the show cause notice, the petitioner shall file a detailed and comprehensive representation.

In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

The petition was disposed of.

(See 2015-TIOL-2844-HC-P&H-ST)