9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 883 - HC - Service TaxRejection of form under Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - duty demanded, as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, was incorrectly mentioned by petitioner while filing up the Form - HELD THAT - As held by this court in Thought Blurb 2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand. The primary focus being to is to unload the baggage of pending litigation in respect of service tax and central excise from pre-GST regime so that the businesses can move on. If this broad picture is kept in mind while considering not only the application under the SVLDRS scheme seeking amnesty, in the fact situation of this case, such a broad picture has to be kept in mind. Mr. Agashe prays that a direction be given to Respondent no.3 not to impose any penalty. This is something which Respondent no.3 will have to consider on the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent no.3 are requested to keep in mind that petitioner had filed an application under the SVLDRS which came to be rejected not because petitioner was not eligible but due to certain incorrect entries being made. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Rejection of Form SVLDRS-1 by Respondent No. 2 2. Eligibility of the petitioner to seek reliefs under the 'Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' 3. Request for waiver of penalty by the petitioner 4. Consideration of petitioner's representation by Respondent No. 3 Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of Form SVLDRS-1 by Respondent No. 2 The petitioner challenged the communication dated 17th March 2020, where Respondent No. 2 rejected Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner. The rejection was based on alleged incorrect entries made by the petitioner regarding the duty demanded, as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 18th October 2019. The petitioner contended that the duty demanded was correctly mentioned, as per the Show Cause Notice and subsequent forms. The rejection led the petitioner to approach the Court seeking relief. Issue 2: Eligibility of the petitioner under SVLDRS The petitioner, a Partnership Firm engaged in construction services, applied for reliefs under the 'Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019'. The petitioner filed Form SVLDRS-1 on 25th December 2019, seeking to resolve its service tax liability. However, Respondent No. 2 issued Form SVLDRS-2 showing the amount payable as NIL, leading to the petitioner filing a fresh Form SVLDRS-1. The petitioner claimed eligibility under SVLDRS based on admitting tax liability during an earlier enquiry. The Court was urged to consider the petitioner's eligibility under SVLDRS. Issue 3: Request for waiver of penalty The petitioner expressed willingness to pay the outstanding amount within a specified period and requested the Court not to impose any penalty, citing the objective of SVLDRS to provide relief and allow businesses to focus on GST. The respondent argued against a waiver of penalty, stating that there was no prayer for it in the petition. The Court noted the petitioner's readiness to make payments and the need for Respondent No. 3 to consider the representation for penalty waiver. Issue 4: Consideration of petitioner's representation by Respondent No. 3 The Court emphasized the objectives of SVLDRS to resolve past disputes and disclose unpaid taxes, aiming to relieve businesses from legacy tax burdens. It acknowledged the petitioner's circumstances, including the death of a key partner causing delays in tax payments. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner's representation, keeping in mind the scheme's objectives and the incorrect entries made by the petitioner. The Court highlighted the importance of extending the scheme's benefits to the petitioner's case. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition without costs, emphasizing the need for Respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner's representation for penalty waiver in light of the SVLDRS scheme's objectives and the petitioner's circumstances.
|
