TOPLINE BUILDTECHPRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

1. The petition has been heardby way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challengingthe orders of rejection, passed against the Second Declaration filed vide ARN No. LD2612190004279,issued by the Respondent No.4 by way of email dated 24th February,2020. Petitioneralso seeks directions to theRespondent No. '4' to give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to present its case in relation to the Second Declaration,and thereafterpass a reasoned order after adjudication of the same in accordance with the principles of natural justice and to supply copies of complete correspondence and note-sheets in the file pertaining to investigations and inquiry and the declarations filed by the 2021:DHC:3251-DB Petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme along with other relevant documents.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in 2018, the Respondent No. 5 issued several summons and letters to the Petitioner to initiate an enquiry/ investigation into Petitioner’s service taxliability for provision of work contract servicesin particular,contract dated 07th August, 2012 with M/s. Wave Mega City Center PrivateLimitedfor construction of shop-cumoffices in Sectors 25A and 32, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. He states that in response to the said Summons and other letters,the Petitioner submitted the relevant documents including the details of challans of pre-deposited tax liability. He contends that Respondent No. 5 accepted that the Petitioner had declared its service tax liability in its correspondence,and asked the Petitioner to fully deposit its admittedliability. He states that the Petitioner, relying on the instructionsof RespondentNo. 5, even deposited a totalof Rs. 10.[5] Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs FiftyThousand) out of the admitted service taxliability of Rs. 18,00,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs), which was later found to be Rs.

20.71 Lakh (RupeesTwentyLakh Seventy-OneThousand) after the balance CENVAT Credit was also included.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in order to take advantage of the said Sabka Vishwas Schemeand settle the ongoing tax dispute, the Petitioner,on 06th December, 2019,filed a declaration to avail the benefit of the already deposited taxliabilityand to dischargethe pending tax liability once and for all. However he statesthat the said declaration was summarily rejected by Respondent No. 4 stating “Amount of dues was not quantified up to 30.06.2019”.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner made anotherattempt by filing a fresh declaration dated26th December, 2019 for the same issue and dispute,which too was rejected for the same reason. He states that subsequently, thePetitioner submitted a letter dated 30th December, 2019 requesting Respondent No. 4 to reconsider the request to settle Petitioner’s ongoingtax dispute as per the provisions of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. However, thePetitioner did not receive any responsefor months on any of its letters for reconsideration. He states that the Petitioner also filed several applicationsunder theRight to Information Act, 2005, for supply of information and documents related to anti-evasion branch file of the Petitioner,but to no avail.

6. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Petitioner had written a unilateral letterdated 11th June,2018 stating that its service tax liability upto 30th June,2017 was Rs.18 lakhs and interest liabilityof Rs.14 lakhs. Along with the above letter, a challan of Rs.[3] lakhs dated 11th June, 2018 towards part payment of the said liability was enclosed.

7. The Respondent vide its letter dated 08th August,2019 had pointed out that, even accordingto the Petitioner’s own calculation,service tax liability was due and outstanding. The Petitioner was asked to deposit the balance service tax liability as calculatedby the Petitionervide the said letter.

8. In fact, from the summons dated20th May, 2019, it is apparent that the case was under investigation under Sections 70 and 174 of the CGST Act and the Petitioner has been asked to furnish a large number of documents including copies of challans showing itsservice tax liability deposited after the date of service. In our opinion,the said communication dated 08th August, 2019 does not indicate that thequantum of dutyhad either been quantified or communicated by the Respondent to thePetitioner on or before 30th June,

2019. Consequently, the present writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed.

9. The order be uploaded on the websiteforthwith.Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN,J NAVIN CHAWLA, J OCTOBER 11, 2021 KA