2023 (4) TMI 771 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking direction to deposit the discounted amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019 - It is the contention of petitioner that due to reasons beyond his control Covid-19 pendemic , the petitioner could not avail the benefit under said scheme by depositing the said amount before the last date - HELD THAT - The SVLDRS scheme is a complete code in itself. It is trite law that in tax jurisprudence, any provision relating to concession/discount/rebate are to be construed strictly and any doubt arising therefrom has to be decided in favour of the Revenue. In NOVOPAN INDIA LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX. AND CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD 1994 (9) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court held that a person, invoking an exception or exemption provisions, to relieve him of tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provisions and, in case of doubt or ambiguity, the benefit of it must go to the State. The extension of time is sought by the petitioner to deposit the discounted tax under the Scheme cannot be granted since it would violate the very essence and ethos of the Scheme - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking direction to deposit discounted tax under SVLDRS-3.
Contestation due to inability to avail scheme benefits before the deadline.
Interpretation of SVLDRS scheme provisions and precedent cases.
Denial of extension for depositing tax under the scheme.
Application of precedent judgments for dismissal of the petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee, filed a petition seeking directions to deposit a discounted tax amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019 (SVLDRS-3), quantified by the Designated Committee. The contention raised was the inability to avail scheme benefits due to reasons beyond control, specifically the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Court refrained from detailed adjudication as the issue was settled based on previous decisions. Citing cases like Ms. Matrics Promotion & Events and M/s Dinesh Kumar Yadav, the Court referenced the Apex Court's decision in Ms. Yashi Construction case. The Apex Court emphasized strict adherence to scheme terms and conditions, denying relief for late deposits, as it would alter the scheme's essence, a prerogative of the Government.

Highlighting the SVLDRS scheme as a comprehensive code, the Court reiterated the principle of strict construction of concession provisions in tax jurisprudence. Referring to cases like Novopan India Ltd. and B.P.L. Ltd., the Court emphasized that any doubt or ambiguity regarding exemption provisions should favor the State.

Consequently, the Court denied the extension sought by the petitioner for depositing discounted tax under the scheme, emphasizing that granting such extension would undermine the scheme's essence. Thus, the Court applied the precedent set in the case of Ms. Matrics Promotions & Events for the dismissal of the petition.