2023 (3) TMI 892 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) i.e., SVLDR Scheme, 2019 - requirement to deposit 50% of the disputed amount - HELD THAT - Undisputed facts of the case are, assessee had indeed deposited Rs.2,52,46,749/-. The show-cause notice demand is for Rs.1,77,06,985/-. 50% of the same comes to Rs.88,53,492/-. Admittedly, assessee's amount of Rs.92,00,000/- is already with the Revenue. It is the contention of Shri. Neeralgi that the Designated Committee could have taken note of only Rs.27,66,646/- which was in pre-deposit. It may be recorded that, whether the amount is paid as pre-deposit while filing the appeal or the amount is already deposited as tax, the same goes to the Treasury of the Central Government and must be accounted for. Once it is not denied that the assessee's amount of Rs.92,00,000/- was already in deposit with the Treasury of the Central Government, there are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in this intra-Court appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the SVLDR Scheme, 2019 in resolving disputes related to service tax demands.
2. Consideration of amounts already deposited by the assessee in the resolution of the dispute.
3. Applicability of pre-deposit conditions under the scheme.
4. Judicial review of decisions made by the Designated Committee under the SVLDR Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over a service tax demand of Rs.1,77,06,985 raised by the Revenue. The assessee had challenged this demand before the CESTAT and also sought resolution under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019. The Designated Committee, after considering the pre-deposit made by the assessee, denied relief under the scheme and calculated an estimated payable amount. The Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee, directing the Revenue to issue a discharge certificate.

2. The main contention raised by the appellant was that the Designated Committee should have only considered the pre-deposit amount of Rs.27,66,646 and not the total amount deposited by the assessee. However, the respondent argued that the audit report confirmed that the assessee had deposited Rs.2,52,46,749, which exceeded the 50% of the tax due. The Hon'ble Court noted that the amount already deposited by the assessee must be accounted for, irrespective of whether it was a pre-deposit or tax payment.

3. The Court emphasized that under the SVLDR Scheme, the assessee was required to deposit 50% of the disputed amount. Since the assessee had already deposited an amount exceeding the required 50%, the Designated Committee's decision to deny further relief was upheld. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that only the pre-deposit amount should have been considered, stating that any amount deposited with the Treasury of the Central Government must be taken into account.

4. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the intra-Court appeal by the Revenue, upholding the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge. The appeal failed as the Court found no reason to interfere with the order, considering the undisputed facts regarding the amount deposited by the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the conditions of the SVLDR Scheme and accounting for all amounts deposited in resolving tax disputes.