9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 71 - HC - Service TaxRejection of declaration of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute) Resolution Scheme, 2019 - rejection on the ground that Petitioner was subjected to audit as on the relevant date and therefore falls in the class of declarants who were ineligible to make declaration under the Scheme under Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019 - HELD THAT - The Scheme is clear that the declarant making voluntary disclosure, is ineligible for applying under the scheme, if it was subjected to audit as of 30 June 2019. Since it is demonstrated that the Petitioner was subjected to audit commenced earlier to 30 June 2019 the Petitioner was within the class declarants excluded from the Scheme, as referred to under Section 125 of the Act of 2019. There is no challenge to the audit proceedings before us. It is not possible to give a declaration in this Petition that the audit proceedings had deemed to have lapsed on 30 June 2019 as such a declaration is outside the scope of this proceeding, even assuming that such declaration can be given. There is therefore no error committed by the Respondents in rejecting the Petitioner s declaration - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Rejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute) Resolution Scheme, 2019 by the authorities. 2. Interpretation of the term "audit" under Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019. 3. Eligibility of the petitioner to avail benefits under the SVLDR Scheme. 4. Compliance with the provisions of the SVLDR Scheme in relation to audit proceedings. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a private limited company, had a leave and license agreement with another entity. The authorities issued a letter regarding the conduct of audit for Service Tax for the period 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. The petitioner's declaration under the SVLDR Scheme was rejected based on the audit being initiated before the relevant date. 2. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "audit" under Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019. The court examined the written intimations received by the petitioner in September and November 2017, which were for the commencement of the audit. The court referred to the definition of "audit" under Section 121(g) of the Act, which includes any scrutiny, verification, and checks carried out under indirect tax enactment. 3. The court considered the petitioner's argument that there was no further communication after the initial intimation and that the audit proceedings should be considered as lapsed. However, the respondents contended that due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation, the audit proceedings were completed in December 2019. The court emphasized the clear stipulations of the SVLDR Scheme, which rendered declarants ineligible if subjected to audit as of 30 June 2019. 4. Ultimately, the court held that since the petitioner was subjected to audit before the relevant date, they fell within the class of declarants excluded from the SVLDR Scheme. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no error in rejecting the petitioner's declaration. The court highlighted the importance of complying with the provisions of the SVLDR Scheme and upheld the decision of the authorities in this case.
|
