fiogf49gjkf0d
Under VCES, there is no provision whereby designated authority can undertake the task of bifurcating or computing the liability by showing a disparity in the figures of ST-3 returns and the declaration made.
Facts:
Petitioner provided its commercial premises on leave and license. The occupants challenged the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property service. On account of the ongoing litigation, the computation of liability was not in terms of the statutory provisions. Service tax liability of Rs 31,51,010/- was declared in the ST-3 returns filed and VCES declaration was filed for Rs 31,54,010/-. The declaration was rejected under the first proviso to section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013.
Held:
The Hon’ble High Court noted that as per section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013, any person can declare his tax dues in respect of which no notice or order of determination u/s. 72 or 73 or 73(a) has been issued before 01-03-2013. Provided if a return is furnished u/s. 70 disclosing true liability but the payment is not made in full or in part then such person would not be eligible for making a declaration. There is no provision which allows the authority to bifurcate or compute the liability by showing some differences between the ST-3 returns and the declaration filed and thus rejection of the scheme outright by the exercise undertaken was not permissible. The Writ Petition succeeded and the declaration was directed to be scrutinised in terms of the scheme and the rules made in this regard.
