9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 946 - HC - Service TaxMaintainability of petition - adjustment of pre-deposit - seeking direction to respondent No.2 to consider the pre-deposit amount as per Annexure-D which is a Challan evidencing the payment of tax and to make appropriate demand after adjusting such pre-deposit - HELD THAT - The record of personal hearing would indicate that pre-deposit of ₹ 32,33,181/- as per the Challan bearing No.01206 dated 25.09.2014 was requested to be considered after necessary clarification. A copy of the said Challan is produced at Annexure-D to the petition. The material on record does indicate that the petitioner has furnished the Challan bearing No.01206 dated 25.09.2014 for a sum of ₹ 32,33,181/- at the time of personal hearing. No doubt, the order of rejection at Annexure-F dated 18.05.2020 states that the declarant upon verification by the Designated Committee did not have any supporting documents and accordingly, the application was rejected, however, considering the material on record, it would be appropriate to direct reconsideration of the petitioner's application and if it were to be so that the pre-deposit as claimed and supported by the Challan relates to the dispute which is the subject-matter of appeal at Annexure-E, the Designated Committee to re-look into the matter and dispose of petitioner's application in Form SVLDRS-1 in accordance with SVLDR Scheme. Taking note that the letter of rejection dated 18.05.2020 at Annexure-F being cryptic and in light of the discussion made above and in light of the documents being submitted at the time of personal hearing, it would be appropriate to direct that the petitioner's application in Form SVLDRS-1 be reconsidered - the letter of rejection at Annexure-F dated 18.05.2020 rejecting the petitioner's application in Form SVLDRS-1 is set aside and the respondent Designated Committee is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 at Annexure-A as per the SVLDR Scheme keeping in mind the objective of the Scheme in the letter and spirit. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Quashing of rejection letter and consideration of pre-deposit amount. 2. Rejection of application under the SVLDR Scheme. 3. Interpretation of Section 124(2) of the Finance Act. 4. Compliance with Circulars and objective of the SVLDR Scheme. 5. Reconsideration of application and impact of Circular dated 01.05.2020. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to quash the rejection letter and requested consideration of the pre-deposit amount. The petitioner claimed a pre-deposit of ?32,94,023 but the Estimate issued by the respondent Authority did not include this amount. The petitioner availed of a personal hearing and submitted details of pre-deposits made, which were not considered during rejection. 2. The rejection was based on the lack of supporting documents for the claim. The petitioner argued that the SVLDR Scheme allows for adjustment of pre-deposits, emphasizing the need for adherence to the Scheme's objective. The respondent contended that due to pending applications, reconsideration was not feasible, citing practical difficulties and lack of clarity on the pre-deposit. 3. The Court referred to Section 124(2) of the Finance Act, which mandates the deduction of pre-deposits from the amount payable by the declarant. The petitioner's assertion of pre-deposit was supported by Challans, which were not adequately considered during the rejection process. 4. Emphasis was placed on compliance with Circulars and the objective of the SVLDR Scheme. The Court directed the Designated Committee to reconsider the application, highlighting the importance of proper consideration to prevent deprivation of scheme benefits. The Circular's deadline for application disposal was overridden due to errors in the initial consideration. 5. Despite the Circular's deadline, the Court ordered reconsideration of the application, stressing the right of the petitioner not to be prejudiced by improper consideration. The Authorities were advised to account for such contingencies in future scheme implementations. The petition was disposed of, considering all arguments and evidence presented. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Court's decision and reasoning.
|
