JUDGMENT : Soumitra Pal, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata challenging the judgment dated 3rd April, 2014 passed in W.P. 10245(W) of 2014 (Parijat Vyappar Private Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) 2. It appears that the writ petitioner no. 1, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having service tax registration under Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and the petitioner no. 2, a director of the petitioner no. 1, moved a writ petition affirmed on 31st March, 2014 upon notice to the appellant herein. Prayers in the writ petition, relevant for consideration, are as under : "(a) A writ and/or in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents, their men, servants, agents or assigns to forthwith :- (i) Quash, rescind, recall, set aside, cancel and/or revoke the impugned Authorization of Arrest dated January 17, 2014; (ii) Refrain from giving any effect and/or further effect and from taking any steps and/or further steps pursuant to the declaration made by the petitioner under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 and the Finance Act, 2013 ; (iii) Declaration declaring the petitioner to be eligible under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 and the Finance Act, 2013 and to be entitled to the benefits under the Scheme for payment of the balance 50% of the declared tax dues ; (iv) Declaration that the petitioner is entitled to adjustment and/or deduction of its Income Tax Refund from the payments to be made under the Scheme of 2013 ; (v) Direct the respondent No. 3 herein, to accept the payments to be made by the petitioner as payments towards the balance of the 50% of the tax dues under the Scheme of 2013 ; (vi) Refrain the respondent authorities from refusing to allow the eligibility and benefits to the petitioner under the Scheme of 2013 ; (vii) Treat the petitioner to be eligible under the Scheme of 2013 ; (viii) restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants and assigns from giving any effect and/or further effect and/or taking any steps or further steps pursuant to the declaration given by the petitioner under the Scheme of 2013 and in directing the respondent No. 3 to accept all payment made by the petitioner towards the declaration of tax dues as payment under the Scheme of 2013. *** *** *** *** ** (d) An order of injunction be passed restraining the respondents, their men, agents, servants and assigns from giving any effect and/or further effect and/or taking any steps or further steps pursuant to the declaration given by the petitioner under the Scheme of 2013 and in directing the respondent No. 3 to accept all payment made by the petitioner towards the declaration of tax dues as payment under the Scheme of 2013." 3. The writ petition was moved and disposed of by the judgment under challenge, the relevant portion of which is set out hereunder : "At the time of moving the writ petition a point of law arose relating the interpretation of Section 107 and Section 110 of the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 and the respective Advocates have addressed the Court on the point of law. Since the facts are not disputed, this Court proceeded to decide the writ petition on the question of law agitated by the respective counsels. *** *** *** *** ** My endeavour has failed to find out from the provision of the said scheme that once a default is committed for non-compliance of the provisions contained therein relating to the deposit, the declarant shall be thrown outside the ambit of the said scheme and shall be thrown in the pool of chapter containing the service tax. Section 110 of the said Act clearly indicates that in the event of the default of the payment either fully or in part, the balance amount would be recovered by taking recourse to Section 87 of the Finance Act. It is tried to be contended by the respondent that Section 102 which contemplates for removal of doubts makes it abundantly clear that the immunity provided under the scheme would not be available to the declarant who committed default for compliance of the conditions relating to the deposit of tax dues. On meaningful reading of the provisions contained therein it appears that the immunity as to any benefit, concession or immunity granted under Section 96 shall not be available to the defaulting declarant. The aforesaid provisions have to be read conjointly with section 110 of the said Act. If default is committed under the scheme the consequences provided in the scheme is to be adhered to and the authority cannot travel beyond the boundaries set therein. The aforesaid provisions have to be read conjointly with section 110 of the said Act. If default is committed under the scheme the consequences provided in the scheme is to be adhered to and the authority cannot travel beyond the boundaries set therein. The benefit under the scheme is provided to a person against whom no enquiry or investigation or other proceeding are initiated. Section 106 of the said Act makes the position clear and, therefore, the person who voluntarily declare his liability to pay service tax, if commits defaults in complying the provisions contained under the said scheme, the authorities are bound to take action under the provisions which provides for the steps to be taken for non-compliance of any of the provisions of the said scheme. To sum up, this Court must conclude that the proviso is applicable only in respect of Sub-section (4) of Section 107 and cannot be stretched to Subsection (3) of Section 107. The authorities can take recourse under Section 110 of the said Act, in the event any default is committed under the scheme. With these observations, this Court dispose of this writ petition." 4. It is to be noted that Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (for short "VCES"), which came into effect from 10th May, 2013, was introduced to encourage disclosure of service tax dues and compliance of Service Tax law by the persons who have not paid service tax dues for the period from October, 2007 to December, 2012. The VCES envisaged a complete waiver of interest, penalty and other consequences on payment of tax dues relating to the period under VCES. 5. It appears from section 107(1) of the VCES that a person may make a declaration for payment of dues before the designated authority on or before the 31st day of December, 2013 in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed which, under section 107(2), the authority shall acknowledge in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 107(3) postulates that the declarant shall, on or before the 31st day of December, 2013 pay not less than fifty per cent of the tax dues so declared under section 107(1) and submit proof of such payment to the designated authority. Section 107(3) postulates that the declarant shall, on or before the 31st day of December, 2013 pay not less than fifty per cent of the tax dues so declared under section 107(1) and submit proof of such payment to the designated authority. Section 107(4) stipulates that the tax dues or part thereof remaining to be paid after payment made under subsection (3) shall be paid by the declarant on or before the 30th day of June, 2014 provided where the declarant fails to pay the said tax dues or part thereof on or before the said date, he shall pay the same on or before the 31st day of December 2014 along with interest. 6. It was submitted by Mr. S.S. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Judge while passing the judgment under challenge failed to appreciate that if a person failed to pay 50% of the declared amount, he could not come under VCES and the authorities are free to take action under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge that the authorities can take action under section 87 of the Act is contrary to law. Submission was the learned Judge failed to appreciate that though the respondents herein declared their service tax liability, however, as they failed to pay 50% of the declared amount within 31st December, 2013, the authorities had applied before the appropriate forum under section 91 of the Service Tax Act for the offences under section 89(1)(d). Moreover, the learned Single Judges observation that only section 87 of the Act will apply and no other section will apply, is contrary to the VCES and the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. This apart, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that in default of payment, either full or in part, the balance amount shall be recovered by taking recourse to section 87 of the Finance Act which makes the action taken by the authorities under section 89(1)(d) futile. 7. Referring to the writ petition, a copy of which is annexed to the application for stay, it was submitted that it is evident from the letter dated 24th December, 2013, issued by the respondent nos. 7. Referring to the writ petition, a copy of which is annexed to the application for stay, it was submitted that it is evident from the letter dated 24th December, 2013, issued by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, that the company did not pay 50% of the service tax dues and sought for adjustment with its income tax refund which was beyond the purview of the VCES. Thus, the issuance of VCES Form II acknowledging the declaration under VCES Form I, as contended in the writ petition, does not arise. Accordingly, the statements in the writ petition that VCES Form II was issued are incorrect as a copy thereof was not annexed to the writ petition. It is also not a part of the record. Rather, the letter dated 26th December, 2013, issued by the Service Tax authority in reply to the letter dated 24th December 2013 explaining the position of law and directing the writ petitioners to pay the tax dues under the VCES shows that the prayer of the writ petitioners was rejected before the expiry of the of the VCES. Moreover, the letter dated 26th December, 2013 has gone unchallenged. Therefore, it was submitted that as the writ petition is without substance, the appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned order. 8. Mr. Mainak Bose, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2/writ petitioners submitted that as prosecution was pending against the writ petitioners, they had filed a declaration under VCES Form I declaring to pay 50% of the tax dues and the department had issued VCES Form II acknowledging the filing of the declaration under VCES Form I. However, as the prayer for adjustment the tax due with the of income tax refund was rejected and as authorisation to arrest was issued on 17th January, 2014, the writ petition was filed. Submission was since entire dues have been paid, though beyond the time fixed under the VCES, the issue is now academic and no order may be passed in appeal. 9. Admittedly, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 made a declaration in VCES Form I declaring that a sum of Rs. 11,49,32,357/- was due as service tax and intended to make payment of 50% of the dues under VCES. 9. Admittedly, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 made a declaration in VCES Form I declaring that a sum of Rs. 11,49,32,357/- was due as service tax and intended to make payment of 50% of the dues under VCES. However, by letter dated 24th December, 2014, the writ petitioners had indicated the manner in which the tax dues were to be paid and also prayed for adjustment with the income tax refund which, as evident from the letter dated 26th December, 2013, was rejected by the service tax authorities. The question is, whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were entitled under VCES to seek adjustment of service tax dues against the income tax refund. 10. In our view, the question is to be answered in negative as section 107(3) of the VCES postulates that "The declarant shall, on or before the 31st day of December, 2013, pay not less than fifty per cent of the tax dues so declared under sub-section (1) and submit proof of such payment to the designated authority". Therefore, under the VCES, payment of 50% of the tax due entitles a declarant to avail himself of the benefit of the VCES. Since 50% of the tax due was not paid, the writ petitioners did not come under the purview of the VCES. Consequently they are not entitled to the benefits under VCES. The argument of Mr. Bose that the appellant by issuing VCES Form II had accepted the mode and manner of payment of tax due cannot be accepted as nothing is on record from which it can be inferred that the service tax authority had accepted the declaration of the petitioners. Rather the service tax authorities, as noted, by letter dated 26th December, 2013 had rejected the prayer of the writ petitioners for adjustment with the Income Tax dues which has not been challenged in the writ petition. We find that though the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned had at the outset held that "the facts are not disputed", however, these vital aspects were ignored. Since admittedly 50% of the declared tax dues were not paid by 31st December, 2013, the writ petitioners were not entitled to the benefits under the VCES. We find that though the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned had at the outset held that "the facts are not disputed", however, these vital aspects were ignored. Since admittedly 50% of the declared tax dues were not paid by 31st December, 2013, the writ petitioners were not entitled to the benefits under the VCES. Since VCES is a statutory scheme having a fixed time frame, we are of the view that Court by its observations cannot enlarge the time frame as has been done in the instant case. Rather non-payment of 50% of the declared tax dues or other dues under section 107(3) empowers the service tax authority to proceed under section 87 and also under section 89 of the Act, which in the instant case has been initiated. 11. There is another aspect of the matter. Though several reliefs were sought for in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge in the judgment has made certain observations, however, no writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or no direction for declaring the writ petitioners eligible for relief under the VCES was issued. The argument of Mr. Bose that as dues have been paid, though belatedly and the VCES has come to an end today the question is only academic cannot be accepted as failure to make payment under the VCES makes the respondent nos. 1 and 2 liable for the consequences under the Service Tax Act, particularly sections 87, 89 and 91 thereof. Hence, the judgment in appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed. In view disposal of the appeal, connected application stands disposed of. 12. The appellant is entitled to cost of Rs. 10,200/- to be paid by the respondent no. 2. 13. After judgment is delivered, Mr. Mainak Bose, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 prays for stay of operation of the judgment as the entire amount and interest has been paid, though beyond the time as framed under VCES. 14. Since we have held that payment of 50% of the dues within 31st December, 2013 makes a declarant eligible under the VCES and as there is no dispute that payment, including interest, was made by the respondent nos. 14. Since we have held that payment of 50% of the dues within 31st December, 2013 makes a declarant eligible under the VCES and as there is no dispute that payment, including interest, was made by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 much after the stipulated period and at no point of time the said respondents had enjoyed interim order, the prayer for stay is refused. I agree. - Mir Dara Sheko, J.