2020 (8) TMI 29 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( SVLDRS ) - contention of the respondents is that Sub Rule (3) of Rule 7 only qualifies Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7 - HELD THAT - While Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7 specifies the form that has to be used while filing the half yearly returns, Sub Rule(3) clarifies the manner in which the half yearly returns have to be filed by an assessee after 01.10.2011. When so read harmoniously, it would follow that the half yearly return that has to be submitted in the particular form mentioned in Sub Rule (1) had necessarily to be submitted electronically with effect from 01.10.2011 - In the instant case, the petitioner not having filed the returns in electronic form within the period specified in the statute, cannot now be heard to contend that he can file the return in manual form for the purposes of obtaining the benefit applicable to the said category of persons, under the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019'. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking direction to accept manual return for Sabka Vishwas Scheme benefit.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private limited company involved in construction, sought the court's direction to accept a manual return for the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.' The petitioner admitted to not filing returns within the specified period but wanted to file them belatedly in manual form to avail benefits under the scheme. The respondents refused to accept the manual returns, leading to the petitioner approaching the court through a writ petition.

The counsel for the petitioner referenced Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, highlighting that prior to 01.10.2011, returns could be filed manually. However, a subsequent amendment mandated electronic submission of half-yearly returns. The petitioner argued that the introduction of the electronic filing requirement did not nullify the provision allowing manual filing. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the electronic filing rule clarified the submission process post-2011 and claimed that the petitioner did not submit any manual returns as alleged.

Upon evaluating the arguments, the court sided with the respondent, affirming that the electronic filing rule complemented the manual filing provision. The court interpreted that returns specified in manual form under Rule 7 had to be submitted electronically from 01.10.2011 onwards. As the petitioner failed to file electronically within the stipulated period, the court held that allowing manual submission at a later stage for scheme benefits was not permissible. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the requested relief could not be granted under the circumstances.