JUDGMENT :

Abhay Ahuja, J.

Petitioner has filed this Petition being aggrieved by the rejection of its application to settle its dispute under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (for short the “Scheme”) as enacted in Chapter V of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 (for short the “said Act”).

2. Brief facts are that the Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 had given its commercial premises on leave and license basis to tenants from time to time. Vide Finance Act, 2010, Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, was amended wherein renting of property was made taxable with effect from 1 June 2007. Petitioner had applied and obtained Service Tax Registration from 16 June 2011 under the category of ‘Renting of Immovable Property Service’. It is Petitioner’s case that it did not pay service tax to Service Tax Authority under the belief that mere letting out was not a service. However, due to the purported uncertainties about the legal provisions with respect to the levy of service tax during the period, the Petitioner raised invoices on the licensee for service tax which the licensee paid to the Petitioner from time to time.

3. Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (for short the “VCES”) was introduced by Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2013. Pursuant to Section 106(1) of the VCES, a person could declare his tax dues for the period 1 October 2007 to 31 December 2012 and upon payment of service tax, there would be immunity from interest and penalty.

4. Petitioner filed Form VCES-1 on 2 July 2013 wherein the Petitioner showed an amount of Rs.3,41,82,926/- as service tax liability for the period October 2007 to March 2011. It is the case of Petitioner that although service tax on renting out of immovable property was effective from 1 June 2007, the period from 1 June 2007 to 30 September 2007 was outside the VCES as the said Scheme covered the period only from 1 October 2007. It is submitted that the amount of rent and tax relating to the period from 1 June 2007 to 30 September 2007 was erroneously shown by the Petitioner as tax dues for the period 1 October 2007 to 31 March 2008 in the declaration dated 2 July 2013 made by the Petitioner.

5. That on account of the above error, tax liability of Rs.31,25,815/- relating to the period from 1 June 2007 to 30 September 2007 was also erroneously included in the declaration, under VCES.

6. The Designated Authority, (VCES-Cell), Service Tax, Mumbai issued Form VCES-2 dated 8 July 2013 acknowledging the receipt of declaration filed by Petitioner under Form VCES-1 pursuant to which Petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the tax dues by 31 December 2013. It is submitted that the Petitioner did not make payment of 50% of the declared dues by 31 December 2013 under the belief that the said payment could be made by 31 December 2014 along with interest from 1 July 2014 in view of proviso to Section 107(4) of the VCES. That the Petitioner believed that 50% of the said amount needed to be paid by 31 December 2013 only if interest from 1 July 2014 was to be avoided.

7. As Petitioner failed to deposit 50% of the tax dues by 31 December 2013, the benefit of the VCES was denied. By a letter dated 4 March 2014 the Deputy Commissioner (Anti Evasion), ST-I, intimated the Petitioner that the VCES conditions had not been fulfilled by the Petitioner and directed the Petitioner to pay the entire amount declared under the VCES.

8. It is submitted that Petitioner paid the amount of service tax of Rs.3,10,57,111/- except the amount of Rs.31,25,815/- declared under the scheme. That the said payment was made by the Petitioner on various dates during the period from 4 February 2014 to 27 March 2014. That, thereafter, the bank accounts of the Petitioner were attached for recovery of the dues declared under the VCES and in order to have the recovery / attachment lifted, the Petitioner paid the amount of Rs.31,25,815/- under protest. It is submitted on beha