9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 952 - HC - Service TaxRejection of Petitioner s application / declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Territorial jurisdiction of Commissionerate - it is contended that when the Petitioner was filing declaration on the portal in SVLDRS-1, there was no option to change the Commissionerate as once the Petitioner had entered the registration number, it automatically showed the concerned Commissionerate as Thane Commissionerate and it was not possible for the Petitioner to change the option to Navi Mumbai. HELD THAT - The scheme of 2019 which is brought into force by the Finance Act of 2019 is for settlement of legacy disputes and also gives opportunity to the tax payer to come forward to make payments and to resolve their pending disputes. It was also to help the Government to clear the amount locked in litigation to augment the revenue. In that context, the scheme of 2019 has to be construed. Section 125 of the Act, while it provides for declaration under the scheme, excludes categories of persons who are ineligible to make a declaration under the scheme. It is not the case of the Respondents, as conveyed to the Petitioner in the remark column, that Petitioner falls under in any of the exclusions. The form to be filled under Section 125 of the Act is specified in the SVLDR Scheme Rules 2019 and form of SVLDRS-1 is appended to the Rules. The first column contains the service tax registration number. Then the other details and there is Column 8 which states select a Commissionerate. Prima facie reading of Column 8 would indicate that a Commissionerate can be selected. If the Petitioner had selected a wrong Commissionerate and when it was pointed out, if it was possible for the Petitioner to correct the Commissionerate, then the argument of the Respondents that the Petitioner failed to do so in forty-one days would have relevance - there are no option but to proceed on the premise that once the Petitioner had entered registration number which was tied up with Thane Commissionerate, the option at Column 8 was automatically selected. Therefore, from the pleadings in the Petition, which have not been controverted in the reply affidavit, what emerges to us is the Petitioner is a victim of the lacuna in the software governing the SVLDR scheme where the Petitioner could not have selected the option of Navi Mumbai Commissionerate which was earlier Commissionerate of the Petitioner. This being the position, it is opined that the Petitioner is entitled to get his application / declaration SVLDRS-1 to be examined on merits as to whether the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to the benefit of the scheme. The impugned rejection of the Petitioner s declaration for SVLDRS-1 is set aside - Respondents will treat the application of the Petitioner for SVLDRS-1 as being properly instituted and decide the same on its own merit, as per law and as per the provisions of the scheme, within a period of eight weeks from today.
Issues involved:
The rejection of the Petitioner's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Details of the judgment: Issue 1: Challenge to rejection of application under the SVLDR Scheme The Petitioner, a company with supermarket outlets, challenged the rejection of its application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The rejection was based on the Petitioner's pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in Navi Mumbai Commissionerate. The Petitioner argued that due to a technical issue in the portal, it was unable to change the Commissionerate from Thane to Navi Mumbai, as the registration number automatically linked to Thane Commissionerate. The Court noted that the Petitioner was a victim of the software lacuna and directed the Respondents to examine the application on its merits. Issue 2: Interpretation of SVLDR Scheme Rules The Court analyzed the SVLDR Scheme Rules 2019 and the form SVLDRS-1 appended to the Rules. It observed that the form allowed for the selection of a Commissionerate, but due to the technical limitation in the portal, the Petitioner could not change the Commissionerate from Thane to Navi Mumbai. The Court emphasized that the Respondents should have provided a mechanism for correcting the Commissionerate selection within the scheme. Issue 3: Eligibility under SVLDR Scheme The Court highlighted the purpose of the SVLDR Scheme 2019, which aimed to settle legacy disputes and facilitate tax payers in resolving pending issues. It noted that the Petitioner did not fall under any exclusion categories specified in Section 125 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the scheme should be construed to assist tax payers and augment revenue by resolving disputes. Conclusion The Court quashed the rejection of the Petitioner's declaration for SVLDRS-1 and instructed the Respondents to review the application on its merits within eight weeks. It clarified that the decision did not comment on the merits of the Petitioner's claim, but was based on the technical issue faced by the Petitioner in the application process.
|
