Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.4 Thus, revenue was of view that the declaration filed by the appellant in Form VCES-1 was substantially false and accordingly the same is liable to be rejected in terms of Section 111 (1) of the VCES and Service Tax at applicable rates is liable to be demanded from the appellant.

2.5 A Show Cause Notice dated 22.12.2014 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:

(i) The Declaration under the VCES for an amount of 13,93,208/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Two Hundred Eight only) as "Total Tax Dues" should not be treated as substantially false declaration and why the same should not to be rejected in terms of Section 111 of the VCES
3.3 Arguing for the revenue learned authorized representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of arguments.
4.2 Impugned order records the findings as follows:
"The main issues to be decided in this case are-
1. Whether the declaration under the VCES for an amount of 13,93,208/- as "Total Tax Dues" is to be treated as substantially false declaration and the same is be rejected under the provisions of Section 11 1 of the Finance Act, 2013.

Thus, I hold that the party with an intent to evade payment of service on the taxable services provided/ received by them have disclosed substantially false declaration under VCES as the scrutiny of the financial records of the party it is evident that there is substantial variation in the „Revenue from Operations‟ as reflected in the Balance Sheets of the party and the „Value of Taxable services as per the "calculation sheet" attached with Form VCES-1‟"filed by the party. Thus, the declaration filed by the party in Form VCES-1 is indeed substantially false and the same is liable to be rejected in terms of Section 111 (1) of the Finance Act, 2013 and Service Tax at applicable rates is liable to be confirmed/ demanded from the party under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. Against the taxable services of „Works Contract Services‟ provided by the party during the Financial Years 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 (upto June 2012), the resultant Service Tax liability of the party is derived in terms of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007, as amended. Thereafter, from 01-07-2012 to 31-03-2014, the Service Tax liability of the party has to be determined in terms of Rule 2A (ii) of the "Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006".

28 Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No.70084 of 2024 IN Service Tax Appeal No.70079 of 2016 be confirmed and recovered from the party under the provisions of Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The fifth issue will be taken up for discussion after discussing the case on merits and applicability of Section 73 and 78 of the Finance Act,1994.

On the sixth issue to be discussed, in view of the facts discussed and narrated while discussing the merits above 4 issues, it is proved beyond doubt that appellant willfully failed to disclose wholly or truly all material facts first while disclosing the amount of service tax remained unpaid for the period from October to 2010 December, 2012 under the provisions of Section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013 (VCES Scheme) and subsequently suppressed the value of taxable services in the garb of availing the exemption in respect of construction of "single residential unit" and thus contravened the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. The party has deliberately suppressed the fact from the department that during the Financial Years 2010-11, 2011- 12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, they were engaged in providing the taxable services of „Works Contract‟. The party was registered under Service Tax and was providing taxable services but despite this fact, the appellant neither deposited any Service Tax due thereon nor submitted any ST-3 Returns. Even, when an opportunity was given to the defaulters of Service Tax dues under the VCES scheme as enforced vide Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2013, for waiver of interest and penalties for truthful declaration of „tax dues‟, the appellant tried to suppress the value of taxable services provided by them and submitted a substantially false declaration and thus contravened the provisions of Section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013 and rendered themselves for action under the provisions of Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013. Had the enquiry by the department under specific written information was not initiated against the appellant, 29 Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No.70084 of 2024 IN Service Tax Appeal No.70079 of 2016 this apparent evasion of Service Tax by the appellant might not have been unearthed.