Page 64 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

278 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
2. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s application for settling dis-
pute under the said scheme has been rejected on two counts namely :-
(i) that the petitioner was not entitled to settle the dispute as the decla-
ration filed by the petitioner was not in terms of Section 106(1) of
the Finance Act, 2013 inasmuch as notice and orders had been is-
sued to the petitioner for the preceding period on the same issue.
(ii) that the payment made by the petitioner on 9-4-2013 cannot be con-
sidered for settling dispute under the aforesaid scheme.
3. The petitioner had been subjected to six Show Cause Notices for a
period of commencing from 16-7-2001 to September, 2011. Out of the six Show
Cause Notices, the first Show Cause Notice was adjudicated, which went up to
the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1287 of 2008, dated 17-11-2008
[2009 (13) S.T.R. 641 (Tri. - Chennai)] had partly allowed the appeals and partly
rejected.
4. The demand for the period prior to 10-9-2004 was set aside and for
the period after 10-9-2004 up to March, 2006 was upheld. The petitioner took up
the issue before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this
Court by its order, allowed the petitioner’s appeal in (2015) 86 VST 160 (Mad) =
2016 (41) S.T.R. 34 (Mad.). The revenue took up the issue on further appeal before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is pending in S.L.P. Nos. 11840 and
11841 of 2016 [2018 (11) G.S.T.L. J132 (S.C.)].
5. The petitioner admits that remaining 5 Show Cause Notice proceed-
ings have been kept pending for adjudication and await for final disposal of the
departments appeal in SLP. Nos. 11840 and 11841 of 2016.
6. For the period in dispute in the present case that is for the period be-
ginning from 1-10-2007 to 31-12-2012, the petitioner availed the benefit of the
Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme announced vide the
Finance Act, 2013. However, before the Finance Act, 2013 was enacted, the peti-
tioner deposited a sum of Rs. 43,19,603/- on 9-4-2013 and the balance amount of
Rs. 3,97,566/- on 5-6-2013.
7. The petitioner thereafter filed a declaration in Form VCES-1 in terms
of Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 on 26-7-2013
to settle the case by declaring tax dues for the period commencing from July,
2012 to December, 2012. Form VCES-2 was acknowledged on 30-7-2013 by the
respondent. The petitioner was thereafter issued with a Show Cause Notice dat-
ed 14-8-2013 by the Designated Authority. The petitioner replied to the same on
11-11-2013, which has culminated in the impugned order rejecting the petition-
er’s application. The petitioner stated that it had incurred service liability for the
period 1-7-2012 to 31-12-2012 in terms of Rule 9(c) of the Place of Provision of
Services Rules, 2012, which became effective from 1-7-2012. The show cause no-
tices and the orders-in-original referred to in Paragraph 2.0 of the Show Cause
had nothing to do with the aforesaid rules which was clear from the periods cov-
ered by such show cause notices and orders-in-original as elaborated in the an-
nexure to the Show cause. Besides, in those cases, the issue involved was wheth-
er the services provided, the benefit of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 was
availed. Those cases did not involve the issue relating to liability or otherwise
from 1-7-2012 in terms of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. The rules in
question have been framed under Section 66C of Chapter-V of the Finance Act,
1994. The rules operate only from 1-7-2012. The payments made by the petitioner
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  64