2023 (2) TMI 669 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - denial of benefit of the amount of pre-deposit made by the Petitioner during the inquiry - petitioner made to pay an excessive amount for issuance of the discharge certificate - HELD THAT - After the Petitioner had received SVLDRS- 2, the Petitioner addressed two communications to the Designated Committee calling upon the Committee for adjustment of the service tax of Rs.55,06,021/- already paid in reference to the challans. Apart from these two communications made to the Designated Committee, the Petitioner has placed the material in respect of the deposit of Rs.55,06,021/-. Since the Scheme itself makes a provision for adjustment of any amount paid as pre-deposit and since it was the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner demonstrated through evidence that an amount of Rs.55,06,021/- was already paid by the Petitioner and should have been considered as pre-deposit or deposit during the enquiry, the Designated Authority ought to have examined this aspect carefully. In a given case, if a declarant is able to show that deposit or pre-deposit, as the case may be, has been made, then such a declarant is entitled to an adjustment or reduction of the amount to be paid under the Scheme and for receipt of the discharge certificate in respect of the said amount. The failure of the Committee even to examine these documents has resulted in prejudice to the Petitioner. The documents will have to be examined by the Respondents to ascertain whether the Petitioner was entitled to relief under section 124(2) of the Act. In the case at hand, the Designated committee, without examining the documents on record, has concluded that the petitioner has failed to produce evidence regarding the pre-deposit. As far as the finding of the Designated Committee that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not appropriated the amount and the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of section 124(2) is concerned, the material on record will have to be examined. The Respondents are directed to examine the material placed on record by the Petitioner indicated above in this decision and referred to in the petition and to decide as regards the aspect of section 124(2) in respect of the amount of Rs.55,06,021/-. Upon examination of the issue, if the decision is reached that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit under section 124(2) to the extent of Rs.55,06,021/-, then the Respondents will take consequential remedial steps within eight weeks - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's grievance regarding non-receipt of benefit of pre-deposit made during inquiry and excessive payment for discharge certificate under Sabka Vishwas Scheme.

Analysis:

1. Background and Dispute: The Petitioner, a manpower recruitment supply agency, faced service tax investigation resulting in demands totaling Rs.1,94,97,927. The Petitioner deposited Rs.55,06,021 during proceedings and claimed it as pre-deposit. Despite appeals and pending proceedings, the Petitioner filed a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, stating the tax amount as Rs.1,19,88,843 minus the deposited sum.

2. Legal Provisions: Section 124(2) of the Finance Act 2019 allows deduction of any pre-deposit made during appellate stages or investigations while issuing the declarant's payable amount. If the pre-deposit exceeds the payable amount, no refund is granted to the declarant.

3. Petitioner's Contentions: The Petitioner emphasized the deposited amount as pre-deposit, citing references in appeal orders and submissions to authorities. The Petitioner's communications to the Designated Committee and evidence of deposit were presented to support the claim for adjustment under the Scheme.

4. Court's Observations: The Court noted the lack of examination by the Designated Committee regarding the Petitioner's evidence of pre-deposit. Emphasizing the Scheme's provision for adjustment based on pre-deposits, the Court highlighted the Committee's failure to consider the documents, resulting in prejudice to the Petitioner.

5. Designated Committee's Response: The Respondents disputed the Petitioner's deposit claim and alleged misdeclaration. They contended that without evidence of the deposit, the Petitioner was not entitled to relief or refund under section 130 of the Act.

6. Court's Decision: Directing the Respondents to review the Petitioner's evidence and documents, the Court instructed a detailed examination of the pre-deposit issue under section 124(2). If the Petitioner is found entitled to the benefit, remedial actions were to be taken within eight weeks, ensuring compliance with the Scheme's provisions.

7. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with instructions for a thorough review of the evidence presented by the Petitioner to determine the entitlement to relief under section 124(2) of the Act, emphasizing the importance of considering pre-deposits in the settlement process under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme.