Case Law Details

Case Name : Shivani Textiles Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ST Appeal No. 51015 of 2019-SM
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/03/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (1011) CESTAT Delhi (324)

Shivani Textiles Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi)

The issue in this appeal is whether the benefit of VCES-Voluntary Compliance encouragement Scheme, 2013 have been rightly denied to the appellant on the basis of clerical error in filing the declaration?

Therefore in this case because of clerical error, the appellant has paid  Rs. 27,32,038 against the actual amount of Rs 27,05,933/- payable under the VCES Scheme.

Having considered the rival contention and perusal of records, CESTAT find that the benefit of VCES 2013, have been denied by revenue, only for the simple clerical error in filling form VCES-1. The appellant have admittedly deposited the declared amount of tax dues, and they cannot be asked to deposit more tax, which will be against the provisions of service tax law, as well as Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of VCES 2013.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT

The issue in this appeal is whether the benefit of VCES-Voluntary Compliance encouragement Scheme, 2013 have been rightly denied to the appellant. From the facts on record and after hearing the parties, admittedly it is a case of clerical error in filing the declaration by the appellant/assessee. As per the gross taxable receipts, the gross tax payable including cess, was calculated at Rs. 27,05,933/-. However, erroneously the appellant failed to adjust or reduce the gross amount of tax payable with the amount of tax already paid, Rs. 5,68,859/- (through 8 challans during the period 18.10.2012 to 29.03.2013). Thus, actual tax dues to be reflected in form VCES-1 should have been Rs. 27,05,933-5,68,859 or Rs. 21,37,074/-. However, appellant has wrongly reflected Rs. 27,05,933/-. Admittedly, appellant have deposited Rs. 14,28,439/- on or before 31.12.2013, which is little more than the amount of 13,52,967/- required to be deposited as per Form VCES-2, before 31.12.2013.

2. Admittedly, appellant has further deposited an amount of Rs. 12,77,497/- during the period 01.01.2014 to 30.06.2014, which is also in compliance to the deposit of full tax, as required to be paid before 06.2014.

3. Evidently, against the amount payable under the VCES Scheme Rs. 27,05,933/- appellant have deposited Rs. 27,32,038/- (higher amount).

4. Learned Counsel further urges that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of VCES, for simple clerical error on its part, which is evident on the face of record, while declaring the correct tax dues. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

5. Learned AR have relied upon the impugned order in appeal.

6. Having considered the rival contention and perusal of records, I find that the benefit of VCES 2013, have been denied by revenue, only for the simple clerical error in filling form VCES-1. The appellant have admittedly deposited the declared amount of tax dues, and they cannot be asked to deposit more tax, which will be against the provisions of service tax law, as well as Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of VCES 2013.

7. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Service Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031