Page 63 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3
P. 63

2020 ]  SUPRASESH GENERAL INSURANCE SERVICE & BROKERS v. ASSTT. COMMR.  277
               registered with, but had failed to file returns - Clear from Budget Speech of
               Finance Minister that where notice or order of determination has been issued
               to person in respect of any period on any issue, no declaration shall be made of
               his tax dues on same issue for any subsequent period - Some show cause no-
               tice in respect of assessee already adjudicated and matter pending in Tribunal/
               Supreme Court and others pending adjudication - Assessee cannot state that
               neither notice nor an order of determination had been issued to it in respect of
               any period on any issue prior to Scheme - Amendment in Finance Act, 2012 did
               not introduce Service Tax on “intermediary or insurance intermediary” service
               for first time - It was liable to tax all along in terms of Section 65(105)(zl) of
               Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1-5-2006 prior to that service - Assessee’s contention
               that it was exempt from payment of tax in terms of Export of Services Rules,
               2005 rejected by Tribunal - Mere change in provisions in Act vide Finance Act,
               2013 not to alter nature of levy of Service Tax on services provided by assessee
               - Not open for assessee to contend that it was entitled to avail benefit of the
               Scheme in light of 2nd proviso to Section 106 ibid - Scheme not available to
               assessee who filed returns under Section 70 ibid but had failed to pay tax -
               Denial of scheme benefit in light of clarification in C.B.E. & C. Circular No.
               169/4/2013-S.T., dated 13-5-2013 not relevant - Service Tax Voluntary Compli-
               ance Scheme, 2013 not intended for person like assessee. [2015 (38) S.T.R. 1129
               (Cal.) relied on; 2014 (36)  S.T.R.  3  (Guj.; (2015)  81 VST 106 (Uttarakhand)  distin-
               guished]. [paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]
                                                                      Petition dismissed
                                             CASES CITED
               Alwaye Sugar Agency v. Commercial Tax Officer — (2011) 42 VST 517 (Ker) — Referred ............ [Para 9]
               Commissioner v. Suprasesh General Insurance Services and Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
                    — 2016 (41) S.T.R. 34 (Mad.) — Referred ................................................................................ [Paras 4, 8]
               Commissioner v. Suprasesh General Insurance Services and Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
                    — 2018 (11) G.S.T.L. J132 (S.C.) — Referred ........................................................................... [Paras 4, 5]
               Durgapur Diesel Sales and Service v. Superintendent
                    — 2015 (38) S.T.R. 1129 (Cal.) — Relied on ......................................................................... [Paras 11, 31]
               Final Order No. 1278/2008, dated 17-11-2008 — Referred ................................................................. [Para 24]
               Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner
                    — 2014 (34) S.T.R. 165 (Del.) — Referred ...................................................................................... [Para 8]
               Premier Associates v. Assistant Commissioner — (2018) 49 GSTR 1 (Karn) — Referred ................ [Para 8]
               Sadguru Construction Co. v. Union of India
                    — 2014 (36) S.T.R. 3 (Guj.) — Distinguished  .............................................................. [Paras 8, 29, 30]
               Suprasesh G.I.S. & Brokers P. Ltd. v. Commissioner
                    — 2009 (13) S.T.R. 641 (Tribunal) — Referred .............................................................................. [Para 3]
               Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam v. Union of India
                    — (2015) 81 VST 106 (Uttarakhand) — Distinguished ........................................................... [Para 30]
                              DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
               C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 169/4/2013-S.T., dated 13-5-2013 ...................................................... [Paras 16, 27]
               C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 170/58/2013-S.T., dated 8-8-2013 ...................................................... [Paras 11, 16]
                       REPRESENTED BY :     Shri N. Sriprakash, for the Petitioner.
                                            Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, Standing Counsel, for
                                            the Respondent.
                       [Order]. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28-1-
               2014 passed  by the respondent rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner
               under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013.
                                     GST LAW TIMES      18th June 2020      63
   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68