2021 (10) TMI 989 - HC - Service Tax

Rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - the quantification made as per the Audit Report has been indicated as 04.12.2019, whereas the relevant date is 30.06.2019 - HELD THAT - It comes out from SVLDRS, 2019 that as per Section 123(c) that tax dues would be the amount of duty payable under any of the indirect tax enactment which has been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. A perusal of Annexure-B would clearly indicate undisputedly that there has been quantification as per the Audit Report dated 04.06.2019. Said aspect has not been controverted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department. In light of the same, clearly the petitioner's case prima facie falls within the requirement of quantification before 30.06.2019 The respondent No.3 to reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 at Annexure-E afresh - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 based on quantification date discrepancy.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the rejection of their SVLDRS application due to a discrepancy in the quantification date, arguing that the Audit Report from 04.06.2019 indicated the quantification of Service Tax involved. The petitioner relied on Sections 123(c) and 125(1)(e) of the SVLDR Scheme, emphasizing that the rejection was legally flawed.

The respondent Department justified the rejection, stating it was based on information provided by the petitioner. However, the Court noted that as per Section 123(c) of SVLDRS, tax dues must be quantified before 30.06.2019. Section 125(1)(e) also specifies that eligibility requires quantification before the same date.

Upon reviewing Annexure-B, which confirmed quantification in the Audit Report dated 04.06.2019, the Court found the petitioner's case aligned with the quantification deadline of 30.06.2019. The respondent Department did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 05.05.2020 and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's application in Form SVLDRS-1 at Annexure-E, adhering to the legal provisions.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition by instructing the respondent No.3 to reassess the petitioner's application in accordance with the observations made and the applicable law, emphasizing the importance of quantification before the specified deadline under the SVLDR Scheme.