2022 (11) TMI 501 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of order passed by the designated committee endorsed on Form SVLDRS 1 - taxability of the service has been rejected by the designated committee on the technical ground that the amount was not quantified before 30.06.2019 - contention is that the petitioner herein has filed a review application before the committee on 14.02.2022, which is still pending - HELD THAT - Having noted the material placed on record, specifically page no.'21' of the paper book and the findings returned by the Assessing Officer from page no.'44' onwards, it is concluded that the matter requires inquiry. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents No.2, 3 4 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks, thereafter, is granted to file of rejoinder affidavit - List thereafter on 14.12.2022.

Issues:
1. Amendment application seeking amendment in the prayer clause of the petition.
2. Challenge to the order dated 31.12.2019 rejecting the claim for settlement of taxability of service.
3. Dispute regarding the rejection based on technical grounds and the date of communication of the Audit report.
4. Review application filed by the petitioner before the committee.
5. Power of the designated committee to review its order and availability of alternative remedy.
6. Inquiry required based on the material placed on record and the findings by the Assessing Officer.

1. Amendment Application:
The judgment begins with an order on a Civil Misc. Amendment Application, where the petitioner seeks to amend the prayer clause of the petition. The application is allowed without objection, and the necessary amendment is to be made within 24 hours.

2. Challenge to Order:
The petitioner challenges the order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the designated committee, which rejected the claim for settlement of the taxability of the service. The rejection was based on the technical ground that the amount was not quantified before 30.06.2019. The petitioner contends that all objections raised during the Audit were settled, and deposits were made before the deadline. The objections for rejection of the claim are deemed wholly illegal.

3. Dispute on Technical Grounds:
The rejection of the claim by the committee is questioned concerning the date of communication of the Audit report on 15.07.2019. The petitioner asserts that the objections were settled during the Audit itself, and deposits were made before the deadline. The contention is that the rejection based on technical grounds is unjustified.

4. Review Application:
The petitioner has filed a review application before the committee on 14.02.2022, which is still pending. In response, the respondent's counsel argues that the designated committee lacks the power to review its order. It is acknowledged that there is no other alternative remedy available to challenge the decision of the committee under the SVLDRS 1 Scheme 2019.

5. Power of Designated Committee and Alternative Remedy:
The discussion revolves around the power of the designated committee to review its order and the absence of an alternative remedy to challenge the decision. The court notes the material placed on record and the findings by the Assessing Officer, indicating that further inquiry is necessary.

6. Inquiry and Future Proceedings:
After considering the material and findings, the court grants time for the respondents to file a counter affidavit and subsequently a rejoinder affidavit. The case is listed for a future date, and no coercive measures are to be taken against the petitioner until the issue of rejection of the claim is examined by the Court. The matter requires further inquiry based on the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses various issues related to the rejection of the petitioner's claim for settlement of taxability of services, including technical grounds, pending review application, power of the designated committee, and the need for further inquiry based on the material and findings presented.

← Previous Next →