RAMILABEN BHARATBHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged a communication dated March 19, 2014 issued by the respondent No. 3 -Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax. Brief facts are as under:

(2.) IT is this communication that the petitioner has challenged in this petition. Thus, admitted facts are that there was a shortfall in depositing 50% of the tax dues by the cut off date of December 31, 2013. As we have noticed that the scheme requires a declarant to deposit 50% of the tax dues latest by December 31, 2013, the remaining 50% would have to be paid latest by June 30, 2014. The proviso to sub -section (4) of section 107 gives some flexibility for the purpose of depositing second installment. Additional six months are granted, but to the extent of delay beyond such period, the declarant would have to bear interest as well. Indisputably, the proviso applies only to sub -section (4) and not sub -section (3). There are several indications in the proviso itself, which makes it inapplicable to sub -section (3).

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, raised two fold contentions. He firstly contended that the shortfall was due to a bona fide calculation error. The amount involved was very small. He secondly contended that under Section 110, the tax short -paid could be recovered with interest, but the declaration itself cannot be rejected.