Kerala High Court
Silpa Projects & Infrastrcture ... vs The Principal Commissioner Of ... on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.27 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.13140/2020(N) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SILPA PROJECTS & INFRASTRCTURE (I)PVT.LTD.
2ND FLOOR, NORTH AVENUE,
PARAMARA ROAD,
KOCHI-682 018,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR.T.S.SANIL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.KUMAR
SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM
SRI.AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND
& CENTRAL EXCISE
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.
2 SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
& CENTRAL EXCISE,
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
& CENTRAL EXCISE,
RANGE 5 ERNAKULAM,
KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI-682 017.
SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.27/21 -:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2021
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
Appellant's plea to accept its half-yearly return under the
Service Tax Act for the period April 2017 to September 2017 in
the physical form was refused by the respondents. The writ
petition seeking a mandamus to the department to accept such
manual form of return was rejected by the learned single Judge.
The appeal is filed challenging the said rejection.
2. Appellant is engaged in a construction industry. They
attempted to claim the benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute
Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short 'the SVLDR Scheme').
However the said scheme is available only to persons who have
filed their returns and a declaration showing the extent of tax
payable by them. Appellant, who claims to have filed only
manual return for the period April, 2017 to September, 2017 was
not treated as eligible for being considered under the SVLDR
Scheme due to absence of returns filed in the electronic form.
The department refused to accept the manual returns filed by
him. The refusal of the department to accept the manual returns
resulted in the writ petition.
3. The learned single Judge after noticing Rule 7(1) and rule
7(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 held that the return ought to have
been filed in the electronic form with effect from 1.10.2011 and
the same having not been filed in the manner required under
law, the relief claimed by the appellant was not liable to be
granted.
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, appellant
assails the judgment contending that the interpretation adopted
by the learned single Judge was incorrect and that rules never
prohibited filing of returns in the manual form, though the
electronic form may be preferable.
5. We have heard Adv.A.Kumar for the appellant and
Adv.Sreelal Warrier, learned Sanding Counsel for the
respondents.
6. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to extract
Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994.
"70. Furnishing of returns.- (1) Every person liable to
pay the service tax shall himself assess the tax due on the
services provided by him and shall furnish to the
Superintendent of Central Excise, a return in such form and
in such manner and at such frequency and with such late fee
not exceeding twenty thousand rupees, for delayed
furnishing of return, as may be prescribed."
7. The manner of filing of the return contemplated under
Section 70 is specified in Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
(for short the Rules) and the same is also extracted, as below:
"7. Returns
(1) Every assessee shall submit a half-yearly return in Form
ST-3, or ST-3A, as the case may be, along with a copy of the
Form TR-6, in triplicate for the months covered in the half-
yearly return.
(2) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(3) Every assessee shall submit the half-yearly return
electronically
8. Sub clause (3) of Rule 7 was incorporated with effect
from 1.10.2011. A reading of the aforesaid provision would make
it clear that the returns contemplated under Section 70 is
required to be filed in the forms specified in Rule 7(1) and from
1.10.2011 onwards it is to be submitted in electronic form. Rule
7(3) is explicit that the half-yearly return shall be submitted
electronically. No other method of submitting the half-yearly
return is contemplated after 1.10.2011, as the wording used in
the rule gives the requirement a mandatory colour. The word
'shall' used in the provision is reflective of the said intention of
the rule making authority.
9. It is also the admitted case of the appellant that
pursuant to the introduction of Rule 7(3), appellant had also
understood the meaning of the said rule in the above terms.
Appellant had been submitting his half-yearly return only in the
electronic form and not in the manual form. The exception to
such method of returns filed by the appellant was Ext.P1 - the
return relating to 2017-18.
10. The requirement of electronic filing is further evidenced
by the provisions of the SVLDR Scheme, wherein also, it is
specified that the declaration under Section 125 of the Act must
be filed electronically. Thus, with the advent of information
technology and its advancement, the shift from manual filing to
electronic filing serves a salutary purpose and this Court cannot
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India interfere with such seamless administration under the
taxing statutes. In this context, we are also mindful of the fact
that the appellant does not have a case that he was prevented
on account of any technical glitches, in filing the half-yearly
return in the electronic form.
11. In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge.
This writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI
JUDGE
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
26.06.2020 FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:
NIL
