Every year when the Budget is round the corner, there are expectations from the industry that the government might come up with another amnesty scheme to encourage assessees to voluntarily come forward and discharge their tax dues. As a trade-off, there is typically a waiver of interest and penalty/prosecution.
On the face of it, these schemes appear to pose a win-win situation for the government and industry, though the genuine/non-controversial taxpayers may be left with a feeling of betrayal. With a whopping R3,00,000 crore pending in litigation with different tax authorities for adjudication/final orders and more than 1,00,000 ongoing cases, an amnesty scheme can be an effective measure to put an end to unwarranted litigation while adding quick moolah to the government coffers.
Take, for instance, the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) introduced by the government under service tax law last year. With widespread ambiguity around the applicability of service tax, availability of Cenvat credit, etc, on various transactions, the VCES was meant to give respite to not only tax evaders but also to genuine taxpayers who would have not paid tax earlier under a bona fide belief that it was not applicable.
At the time of introduction, everyone expected the VCES to be a runaway success. Unfortunately, it faced several challenges in terms of restrictive approach of such schemes, administrative hurdles and a perceived risk of
harassment/increased scrutiny by the authorities. All these aspects cumulatively led to a much lower-than-expected participation by the industry.
The VCES was heavily publicised both in print and electronic media. However, it was marred with ambiguities around issues such as exact coverage of the scheme, eligibility criteria, discharging dues through credit, admissibility of applications in case of existing litigation, etc. In fact, the issue of eligibility under the scheme when a proceeding was initiated by the authorities was a major bone of contention. Also, the fact that the government did not allow use of credit to discharge tax dues under the scheme also proved to be a big dampener.
In fact, while on one hand, the scheme was being heavily publicised, there were news reports of authorities initiating recovery/property attachment proceedings (even arrests) even in cases where applications were made under the VCES. This obviously did not help as it made the industry raise concerns as to whether the scheme was implemented in the manner in which it was intended to. And to make matters worse, some of the