2023 (3) TMI 447 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of sum deposited as pre-deposit during investigation - petitioner s grievance as against this communication is premised in the contention that the petitioner s request for refund of a sum deposited as pre-deposit during investigation, is decided without due opportunity - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is obvious on perusal of the impugned communication, the petitioner s claim is not considered in the light of whether the petitioner, if entitled to credit of pre-deposit under the SVLDR Scheme and has deposited a similar amount to avail the benefit of the Scheme because there was no communication, would be entitled for refund. This Court is of the considered view that this question should have been considered with due opportunity to the petitioner which admittedly is not accorded. Therefore, this Court must intervene quashing the impugned order and restoring the petitioner s application for re-consideration by the first respondent within a time frame. The petition is allowed in part, and the impugned communication dated 01.06.2021 Annexure-S is quashed restoring the petitioner s request for refund to be reconsidered by the first respondent, who shall within eight 8 weeks from the petitioner s first date of appearance after this order decide on such request.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund request under Sabka Vishwas [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme 2019 not considered properly.

Analysis:
The petitioner in this case was aggrieved by a communication dated 01.06.2021, which decided the petitioner's request for a refund of Rs.1,91,38,545 deposited as pre-deposit during an investigation without providing a due opportunity. The petitioner had applied for the benefit of amnesty under the Sabka Vishwas [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme 2019 by claiming credit of the pre-deposit amount. However, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the Committee regarding the credit of the pre-deposit for the Scheme, and hence, deposited the sum to avail the benefit. The petitioner was eventually granted the benefit of amnesty and issued a discharge certificate. Still, the request for credit under the SVLDR Scheme was rejected on the grounds that since the petitioner voluntarily paid the amount under the Scheme, they would be entitled to a refund.

Upon perusal of the impugned communication, it was evident that the petitioner's claim was not considered in light of whether they were entitled to credit under the SVLDR Scheme and had deposited a similar amount to avail the benefit. The Court noted that the question of entitlement for a refund should have been considered with due opportunity, which was not provided to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court intervened, quashed the impugned order, and directed the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for a refund within a specified time frame. The petition was allowed in part, and the petitioner was instructed to appear before the first respondent for further proceedings on a specified date.