2022 (1) TMI 1128 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking direction to respondents to issue revised Form SVLDRS-3 in accordance with the provisions of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - reasons for not adjusting the amounts already paid, not provided - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the remarks column in the impugned certificate at Annexure-M, respondents have specifically stated that petitioner has made certain payments; however, reasons as to why said payments have not been adjusted towards liability of the petitioner under the SVLDRS are not forthcoming and same are conspicuously absent in the impugned certificate which is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned certificate, without any application of mind and without assigning any reasons as to why payments made by the petitioner having not been adjusted towards the liability under the SVLDRS. Without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the contentions of the parties, it is deemed just and proper to set aside the impugned certificate and remit the matter back to respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and the provisions of SVLDRS - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of certificate under SVLDRS Scheme for payment discrepancy.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash a certificate (Form SVLDRS-3) dated 27.01.2020, demanding payment of a specific amount and requested a revised certificate considering payments already made. The petitioner argued that despite making payments for the relevant period, the respondents failed to adjust the payments while calculating the outstanding amount, as required by Section 124 of the SVLDRS.

2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the impugned certificate was issued erroneously without considering the payments made by the petitioner for the period in question (01.02.2012 to 01.11.2013). On the other hand, the respondent's counsel defended the certificate's issuance, stating it was in compliance with the SVLDRS provisions. The respondent argued that there was no evidence of payments made by the petitioner for the specified period, justifying the non-adjustment of any alleged payments in the certificate.

3. The court observed that the impugned certificate acknowledged certain payments made by the petitioner, but lacked justification for not adjusting those payments against the petitioner's liability under the SVLDRS. The court deemed the certificate as cryptic, non-speaking, and without reasoning, highlighting the absence of an explanation for the non-adjustment of payments.

4. Without delving into the merits of the parties' contentions, the court set aside the impugned certificate and directed a reconsideration by the respondents. The court instructed a fresh review in accordance with the law and SVLDRS provisions, emphasizing the necessity of considering the payments claimed to have been made by the petitioner for adjusting the alleged liability.

5. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned certificate and a related Garnishee order. The matter was remitted back to the respondents for a fresh assessment, taking into account the petitioner's payments and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing and submission of supporting documents. The court kept all contentions open for further examination, including the payments made by the petitioner for the specified period.