2020 (12) TMI 638 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - adjustment of amount deposited by the petitioner - time limitation - HELD THAT - The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is with respect to the amount determined by the designated authority under the aforesaid SVLDR Scheme. The petitioner represented before the designated authority in the matter of amount determined under the SVLDR Scheme and the designated authority has communicated the petitioner vide letter dated 08.09.2020 that the request for adjustment of ₹ 15,69,098/- in SVLDR Scheme was not considered since this amount was not entered in ST-3 Returns. That apart, the last date of payment under SVLDR Scheme was 30.06.2020 which has expired. The letter/order dated 08.09.2020 has not even been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition - That apart, adjustment of the amount deposited prior to the issuance of the demand-cum-show cause notice may be adjustable against the demand confirmed by the order in original but it cannot be adjusted for the purposes of determination of amount under the SVLDR Scheme. This writ petition dismissed making open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for adjustment of the alleged deposited amount, if any, towards the demand confirmed by the order in original dated 28.03.2017 and if the petitioner so approaches, the authority concerned shall examine the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking adjustment of deposited amount under SVLDR Scheme against determined amount.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus for adjusting the deposited amount of ?17,72,021 against the determined amount of ?17,75,915 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner had received a demand-cum-show cause notice for ?44,39,787 for service tax from 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, with penalty. An ex parte final assessment order was passed, and subsequent appeals were dismissed. The petitioner claimed to have deposited ?17,72,021 through different challans. The court noted the finality of the original order confirming the demand. The petitioner's grievance was regarding the amount determined under the SVLDR Scheme. The designated authority communicated that a specific amount was not considered for adjustment as it was not in ST-3 Returns, and the deadline for SVLDR Scheme payment had passed. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the authority for adjusting any deposited amount against the confirmed demand, emphasizing no opinion was given on the alleged deposit.

In conclusion, the court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to seek adjustment with the concerned authority. The judgment clarified that deposited amounts may be adjusted against the confirmed demand but not for determining the amount under the SVLDR Scheme. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to pursue the adjustment process with the authority, with the court refraining from expressing any opinion on the alleged deposit.