2020 (7) TMI 780 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - seeking directions to the 3rd respondent committee to accept the payment as per Exts.P8, P9, P10 - seeking issuance of discharge certificate, in Form SVLDRS-4 - HELD THAT - A complete procedure and eligibility has been prescribed for availing the benefit of the scheme. However, as per Section 128 within 30 days of issuance of statement, designated committee, suo motu, is empowered to correct an arithmetical and clerical error, which is apparent on the face of record. No doubt in the instant case while accepting the declarations submitted by the petitioner issued statements vide Exts.P8, P9 and P10 dated 28th February 2020. The rectification orders Exts.P12 to P14 dated 2.6.2020 are beyond 30 days. Though Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the scheme as per originally issued SVLDRS-3 but, this Court cannot remain oblivious that many assesses availed the benefits of scheme and owing to such fact, the designated committee could not notice the manual returns Exts.P1 to P3 were ever filed and by accepting declarations, SVLDRS-3 were issued. The factum of non filing of the manual return has not been controverted. The expression may will not take away the right of the designated committee to rectify even beyond the period of 30 days being not mandatory in nature. Even Section 129 of Scheme envisages that every discharge certificate issued under 126 with respect to the amount payable shall be conclusive but sub Section 2(c) of Section 129 opens with a non obstante clause that in a case of a voluntary disclosure where any material particular furnished in the declaration is subsequently found to be false, within a period of one year of issue of the discharge certificate, it shall be presumed as if the declaration was never made. The misstatement vitiates everything. It is in that background the designated committee found ie., the absence of any returns or payment of tax, the earlier declarations were issued - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rectified statements under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in air conditioning systems, sought to quash rectified statements under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner filed manual returns due to online access issues for certain periods. Opting under the scheme, the petitioner submitted declarations in Form SVLDRS-1, which were accepted by the 3rd respondent committee. However, the committee later rectified the statements beyond the prescribed timeline, leading to objections from the petitioner's counsel regarding the rectification being time-barred under Section 128 of the scheme. The Revenue's counsel argued that the rectification was necessary due to discrepancies in the petitioner's declarations, pointing out a 'modus operandi' of false manual return claims. The Revenue contended that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, citing legal precedents. The court examined the scheme's provisions and found that the designated committee had the authority to rectify errors even beyond the 30-day period, especially in cases of misstatements or false declarations. The court agreed with the Revenue's arguments, emphasizing that misstatements invalidate the process. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions.

This judgment delves into the intricacies of rectified statements under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, highlighting the importance of accurate declarations and the authority of the designated committee to rectify errors. It underscores the legal principle that misstatements can render proceedings null and void, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition.