Circular No. 170/5 /2013 - ST
F. No. B1/19/2013-TRU (Pt)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise and Customs
Tax Research Unit
New Delhi, dated the 8th August, 2013
Chief Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs (All),
Director General (Service Tax), Director General (Systems),
Director General (Central Excise Intelligence), Director General (Audit),
Commissioners of Service Tax (All), Commissioners of Central Excise (All), Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs (All)
Subject: The Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme - clarifications regarding.
The Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) has come into effect from 10.5.2013. Some of the issues raised with reference to the Scheme have been clarified by the Board vide circular No. 169/4/2013-ST, dated 13.5.2013. Subsequently, references have been received by the Board seeking further clarifications as regards the scope and applicability of the Scheme.
2. The issues have been examined and clarifications thereto are as follows:
Whether the communications, wherein department has sought information of roving nature from potential taxpayer regarding their business activities without seeking any documents from such person or calling for his presence, while quoting the authority of section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, would attract the provision of section 106 (2) (a)?
An assessee has two units at two different locations, say Mumbai and Ahmedabad. Both are separately registered. The Mumbai unit has received a Show Cause Notice for non-payment of tax on a revenue stream but the Ahmedabad unit has not. Whether the Ahmedabad unit is eligible for VCES?
Two separate service tax registrations are two distinct assessees for the purposes of service tax levy. Therefore, eligibility for availing of the Scheme is to be determined accordingly. The unit that has not been issued a show cause notice shall be eligible to make a declaration under the Scheme.
Whether a declaration can be made under the Scheme in respect of CENVAT credit wrongly utilized for payment of service tax?
Any service tax that has been paid utilizing the irregular credit, amounts to non-payment of service tax. Therefore such service tax amount is covered under the definition of “tax dues”.
Whether a party, against whom an inquiry, investigation or audit has been initiated after 1.3.2013 (the cutoff date) can make a declaration under the Scheme?
Yes. There is no bar from filing of declaration in such cases.
There was a default and a Show Cause Notice was issued for the period prior to the period covered by the Scheme, i.e. before Oct 2007. Whether declaration can be filed for default on the same issue for the subsequent period?
In the context of the Scheme, the relevant period is from Oct 2007 to Dec 2012. Therefore, the 2ndproviso to section 106 (1) shall be attracted only in such cases where a show cause notice or order of determination has been issued for the period from Oct 2007 to Dec 2012. Accordingly, issuance of a show cause notice or order of determination for any period prior to Oct 2007, on an issue, would not make a person ineligible to make a declaration under the Scheme on the same issue for the period covered by the Scheme. Therefore, declaration can be made under VCES.
In a case where the assessee has been audited and an audit para has been issued, whether the assessee can declare liability on an issue which is not a part of the audit para, under the VCES 2013?
Yes, declarant can declare the “tax dues” concerning an issue which is not a part of the auditpara.
Whether a person, who has paid service tax for a particular period but failed to file return, can take the benefit of VCES Scheme so as to avoid payment of penalty for non- filing of return?
Under VCES a declaration can be made only in respect of “tax dues”. A case where no tax is pending, but return has not been filed, does not come under the ambit of the Scheme. However, rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules provides for waiver of penalty in deserving cases where return has not been filed and, in such cases, the assessee may seek relief under rule 7C.
A person has made part payment of his ‘tax dues’ on any issue before the scheme was notified and makes the declaration under VCES for the remaining part of the tax dues. Will he be entitled to the benefit of non-payment of interest/penalty on the tax dues paid by him outside the VCES, i.e., (amount paid prior to VCES)?
No. The immunity from interest and penalty is only for “tax dues” declared under VCES.
If any “tax dues” have been paid prior to the enactment of the scheme, any liability of interest or penalty thereon shall be adjudicated as per the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and paid accordingly.
Whether an assessee, who, during a part of the period covered by the Scheme, is in dispute on an issue with the department under an erstwhile provision of law, can declare his liability under the amended provisions, while continuing to litigate the outstanding liability under the erstwhile provision on the issue?
In terms of the second proviso to section 106 (1), where a notice or order of determination has been issued to a person in respect of any issue, no declaration shall be made by such person in respect of “tax dues” on the same issue for subsequent period. Therefore, if an issue is being litigated for a part of the period covered by the Scheme, i.e., Oct, 2007 to Dec 2012, no declaration can be filed under VCES in terms of the said proviso on the same issue for the subsequent period.
Whether upon filing a declaration a declarant realizes that the declaration filed by him was incorrect by mistake? Can he file an amended declaration?
The declarant is expected to declare his tax dues correctly. In case the mistake is discovered suo-moto by the declarant himself, he may approach the designated authority, who, after taking into account the overall facts of the case may allow amendments to be made in the declaration, provided that the amended declaration is furnished by declarant before the cut off date for filing of declaration, i.e., 31.12.2013.
What is the consequence if the designated authority does not issue an acknowledgement within seven working days of filing of declaration? Whether the declarant can start making payment of the tax dues even if acknowledgement is not issued?
Department would ensure that the acknowledgement is issued in seven working days from the date of filing of the declaration. It may however be noted that payment of tax dues under the Scheme is not linked to the issuance of an acknowledgement. The declarant can pay tax dues even before the acknowledgement is issued by the department.
Whether declarant will be given an opportunity to be heard and explain his cases before the rejection of a declaration under section 106(2) by the designated authority?
Yes. In terms of section 106 (2) of the Finance Act, 2013, the designated authority shall, by an order, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject a declaration if any inquiry/investigation or audit was pending against the declarant as on the cutoff date, i.e., 1.3.2013. An order under this section shall be passed following the principles of natural justice.
To allay any apprehension of undue delays and uncertainty, it is clarified that the designated authority, if he has reasons to believe that the declaration is covered by section 106 (2), shall give a notice of intention to reject the declaration within 30 days of the date of filing of the declaration stating the reasons for the intention to reject the declaration. For declarations already filed, the said period of 30 days would apply from the date of this circular.
The declarant shall be given an opportunity to be heard before any order is passed by the designated authority.
What is the appeal mechanism against the order of the designated authority whereby he rejects the declaration under section 106 (2) of the Finance Act, 2013?
The Scheme does not have a statutory provision for filing of appeal against the order for rejection of declaration under section 106 (2) by the designated authority.
A declarant pays a certain amount under the Scheme and subsequently his declaration is rejected. Would the amount so paid by him be adjusted against his liability that may be determined by the department?
The amount so paid can be adjusted against the liability that is determined by the department.
Section 111 prescribes that where the Commissioner of Central Excise has reasons to believe that the declaration made by the declarant was ‘substantiallyfalse’, he may serve a notice on the declarant in respect of such declaration. However, what constitutes a ‘substantially false’ declaration has not been specified.
The Commissioner would, in the overall facts of the case, taking into account the reasons he has to believe, take a judicious view as to whether a declaration is ‘substantially false’. It is not feasible to define the term “substantially false” in precise terms. The proceeding under section 111 would be initiated in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
To illustrate, a declarant has declared his “tax dues” as Rs 25 lakh. However, Commissioner has specific information that declaration has been made only for part liability, and the actual “tax dues” areRs 50 lakh. This declaration would fall in the category of “substantially false”.
This example is only illustrative.
What is the consequence if a declarant fails to pay atleast 50% of declared amount of tax dues by the 31st Dec 2013?
One of the conditions of the Scheme [section 107 (3)] is that the declarant shall pay atleast an amount equal to 50% of the declared tax dues under the Scheme, on or before the 31.12.2013. Therefore, if the declarant fails to pay atleast 50% of the declared tax dues by 31st Dec, 2013, he would not be eligible to avail of the benefit of the scheme.
Whether the CENVAT credit is admissible on the inputs/input services used for provision of output service in respect of which declaration has been made under VCES for payment of any tax liability outside the VCES?
The VCES Rules 2013 prescribe that CENVAT credit cannot be utilized for payment of “tax dues” under the Scheme. Accordingly the “tax dues” under the Scheme shall be paid in cash.
The admissibility of CENVAT credit on any inputs and input services used for provision of output service in respect of which declaration has been made shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
(a) Whether the tax dues amount paid under VCES would be eligible as CENVAT credit to the recipient of service under a supplementary invoice?
(b) Whether cenvat credit would be admissible to the person who pays tax dues under VCES as service recipient under reverse charge mechanism?
Rule 6(2) of the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Rules, 2013, prescribes that CENVAT credit cannot be utilized for payment of “tax dues” under the Scheme. Except this condition, all issues relating to admissibility of CENVAT credit are to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
As regards admissibility of CENVAT credit in situations covered under part (a) and (b), attention is invited to rule 9(1)(bb) and 9(1)(e) respectively of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
In terms of section 106 (2)(b), if a declaration made by a person against whom an audit has been initiated and where such audit is pending, then the designated authority shall by an order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such declaration. As the audit process may involve several stages, it may be indicated as to what event would constitute,-
(i) initiation of audit; and
(ii) culmination of audit.
Initiation of audit: For the purposes of VCES, the date of the visit of auditors to the unit of the taxpayer would be taken as the date of initiation of audit. A register is maintained of all visits for audit purposes.
Culmination of audit: The audit process may culminate in any of the following manner.-
(i) Closure of audit file if no discrepancy is found in audit;
(ii) Closure of audit para by the Monitoring Committee Meeting (MCM);
(iii) Approval of audit para by MCM and payment of amount involved therein by the party in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994;
(iv) Approval of audit para by MCM, and issuance of SCN, if party does not agree to the paraso raised.
The audit culminates at a point when the auditparas raised are settled in any manner as stated above.
The pendency of audit as on 1.3.2013 means an audit that has been initiated before 1.3.2013 but has not culminated as on 1.3.2013.
3. Trade Notice/Public Notice may be issued to the field formations and tax payers.
Please acknowledge receipt of this Circular.
Hindi version follows.
Technical Officer, TRU
Tel: 011-2309 2037