Page 67 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] SUPRASESH GENERAL INSURANCE SERVICE & BROKERS v. ASSTT. COMMR. 281
“S. No. 8 :
8 A person has made part payment No. The immunity from interest
of his ‘tax dues’ on any issue be- and penalty is only for “tax dues”
fore the scheme was notified and declared under VCES.
makes the declaration under VCES If any “tax dues” have been paid
for the remaining part of the tax prior to the enactment of the
dues. Will he be entitled to the scheme any liability of interest or
benefit of non-payment of inter- penalty thereon shall be adjudicat-
est/penalty on the tax dues paid ed as per the provisions of Chapter
by him outside the VCES, i.e., V of the Finance Act, 1994 and paid
(amount paid prior to VCES)? accordingly.”

17. The Scheme came into force with effect from 10-5-2013 after the Fi-
nance Act, 2013 was enacted. The Scheme was intended for only those service tax
defaulters who had registered with, but had failed to file returns and therefore to
motivate them to file returns of tax and pay tax, the aforesaid scheme was intro-
duced. It is evident from the budget speech of the Finance Minister on 28-2-2013
at the time of presentation of the budget speech and from the reading of the 2nd
proviso to Section 106(1) of the Finance Act, 2013, as per which where a notice or
an order of determination has been issued to a person in respect of any period on any is-
sue, no declaration shall be made of his tax dues on the same issue for any subsequent
period.
18. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has been issued with the
Show Cause Notice to demand service tax from the petitioner on the commission
received by the petitioner on its reinsurance business. The case has also been ad-
judicated by the Commissioner of Service Tax vide Order-in-Original No.
2/2007, dated 31-1-2007, wherein, the demand of Rs. 1,42,44,880/- was con-
firmed. This issue is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
19. Similarly, vide Order-in-Original No. 19/2010, dated 3-11-2010, the
Commissioner has confirmed the demand for the period between December 07 to
December 08. On the date of the writ petition, an appeal against the said order
was said to be pending before the CESTAT while rest of the show cause notices
were pending adjudication and were awaiting the order of the Honourable Su-
preme Court.
20. The Finance Act, 1994 was completely overhauled in the Finance
Act, 2012. For the first time, the definition of expression “service” was introduced
in Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, any activity carried out by any
person for another consideration was “service” liable to tax under Section 66B of
the Finance Act, 1994. It included, “declared service” enumerated in Section 66E
of the Finance Act, 1994.
21. Under these circumstances, service of every description was liable
to tax except those which fell within the purview of the “negative list” in Section
66D of the Finance Act, 1994. Certain categories of services were specifically ex-
empted in public interest vide Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-S.T.,
dated 30-7-2012.
22. Since Export of Services Rules, 2005 introduced by Notification No.
9/2005-S.T., dated 3-3-2005 and Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside In-
dia And Received in India) Rules, 2006 introduced by Notification No. 11/2006-
S.T., dated 19-4-2006 became redundant in the light of the amendment in the Fi-
nance Act, 2012 new set of rules came to be framed. Place of Provision of Services
Rules, 2012 replaced Export of Services Rules, 2005 introduced by Notification
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  67