2022 (8) TMI 1315 - HC - Service Tax

Benefit under the SVLDRS, 2019 scheme - rejection of benefit on the ground that the investigation initiated against the petitioner was not completed as on 30.06.2019 - Notification dated 27.08.2019 - HELD THAT - In view of clause 10(g) of the Circular dated 27.08.2019 coupled with Section 123(c) of the SVLDR Scheme, the admission made by the petitioner during the course of investigation on 12.01.2018 clearly amounts to quantification prior to 30.06.2019 for the purpose of availing the benefit of the SVLDR scheme and consequently, merely because the investigation had not been completed before 30.06.2019, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR scheme and as such, the impugned order / letter deserves to be quashed. A perusal of Section 123 of the SVLDR Scheme will clearly indicate that the scheme was applicable even when an enquiry or investigation or audit is pending against the petitioner assessee on or before 30.06.2019. in the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the enquiry / investigation against the petitioner was pending as on 30.06.2019 even according to the respondents as can be seen from the impugned order / letter and consequently, on this ground also, the impugned letter / order deserves to be quashed and the mater remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh and in accordance with law. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of the impugned order passed by the Designated Committee.
2. Seeking a writ of mandamus for extending benefits under the SVLDR Scheme based on service tax liability.
3. Granting other writ, order, or direction in the interest of justice and equity.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash the order passed by the Designated Committee and requested the court to issue a writ directing the respondents to extend benefits under the SVLDR Scheme. The petitioner had submitted a declaration seeking benefits under the SVLDR Scheme, which was rejected by the respondent through an order dated 08.05.2020. The court noted that the sole ground for rejection was that the investigation against the petitioner was not completed by 30.06.2019. However, as per the Circular dated 27.08.2019, cases where duty demand was quantified before 30.06.2019 were eligible under the SVLDR Scheme. The court held that the admission made by the petitioner during the investigation clearly amounted to quantification before the specified date. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned order.

2. The court further analyzed Section 123 of the SVLDR Scheme, which indicated that the scheme was applicable even when an enquiry or investigation was pending against the assessee before 30.06.2019. Since it was established that the investigation against the petitioner was pending as of the specified date, the court concluded that the impugned order deserved to be quashed. The court directed the matter to be reconsidered by the respondents in accordance with the law and the provisions of the SVLDR Scheme.

3. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondents for a fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim. The court emphasized that the observations made in the order, along with the SVLDR Scheme and the circular dated 27.08.2019, should be taken into account during the reconsideration process to ensure compliance with the law.