2021 (3) TMI 133 - HC - Service Tax

Rejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - eligibility of petitioner No.1 or maintainability of its declaration to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit on the ground that service tax dues of petitioner No.1 for the related period was not quantified on or before 30.06.2019 - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of THOUGHT BLURB VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. Thus, it is evident that all that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable including a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit. For eligibility under the scheme, the quantification need not be on completion of investigation by issuing show-cause notice or the amount that may be determined upon adjudication. Further, under the scheme what is relevant is quantification of duty demand or duty liability in the manner indicated above on or before 30.06.2019 and not communication before that date. The scheme does not speak of communication; it is quantification which is relevant. Thus, what is of essence under the scheme is an admission of tax dues or duty liability by the declarant before the cut-off date which need not be of the exact figure upon determination by the authorities post 30.06.2019 - In the instant case, petitioner No.2 in his statement before the Senior Intelligence Officer on 12.06.2019 had admitted gross service tax liability of ₹ 1,73,12,978.00. While admitting the said figure, petitioner No.2 did not include service tax on Ocean Freight on which petitioners claimed exemptions. However, in the show cause-cum-demand notice issued subsequently by the office of respondent No.2 on 13.11.2019 this claim was brushed aside and upon addition of service tax on Ocean Freight the total service tax liability got enhanced to ₹ 1,96,02,184.00. It is a settled proposition of law that when an authority relies upon a document, copy of the same should be made available to the aggrieved party so that the aggrieved party can respond to such document and effectively make its defence. Therefore, non-furnishing of report dated 20.02.2020 to the petitioners was in violation of the principles of natural justice which, therefore, vitiated the impugned decision taken. Matter remanded back to the designated committee to consider the declaration of petitioner No.1 dated 26.12.2019 afresh as a valid declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry and audit and thereafter grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Requirement of quantification of service tax dues before the cut-off date of 30.06.2019.
3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in rejecting the declaration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:
The petitioners sought the quashing of the order dated 03.10.2020, which rejected their declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioners argued that they were eligible for the scheme as their service tax dues were disclosed at ?1,96,02,184.00 with a deposit of ?60,00,000.00. The respondents contended that the tax dues were not fully quantified before the cut-off date of 30.06.2019, making the petitioners ineligible for the scheme.

2. Requirement of quantification of service tax dues before the cut-off date of 30.06.2019:
The court referred to previous judgments, including Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India and M/s. G.R. Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, which clarified that for eligibility under the scheme, the tax dues must be quantified on or before 30.06.2019. The term "quantified" was interpreted to mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable, which could include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person during enquiry, investigation, or audit. The court noted that the petitioner's tax liability was admitted in a statement dated 12.06.2019, where the gross service tax liability was acknowledged as ?1,73,12,978.00. Although the final liability was later enhanced to ?1,96,02,184.00, the initial admission was deemed sufficient for eligibility under the scheme.

3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in rejecting the declaration:
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice when rejecting a declaration. It was noted that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to explain their case before the rejection of their declaration. The court cited Thought Blurb (supra), which held that rejecting a declaration without a hearing would be contrary to the object of the scheme and violate principles of natural justice. Additionally, the report from the DGGI, which was adverse to the petitioners, was not furnished to them, further violating natural justice principles.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order dated 03.10.2020 and remanded the matter back to the designated committee to reconsider the petitioner's declaration as a valid one under the scheme. The designated committee was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed to the extent of this relief, with no order as to costs.