9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 375 - HC - Service TaxRejection of application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - the reason for rejection is stated that the applicant/appellant is a co-noticee, wherein the main applicant, M/s. Shakambhari Ispat Power Limited has not yet applied and settled their case in SVLDRS and as such, the appellant s application cannot be processed and is rejected as per the provisions of the scheme - HELD THAT - At the relevant time, an appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Appeal, CGST Central Excise, Siliguri (Appeal), Commissionerate. On receipt of the said form SVLDRS 4, the Commissioner of Appeals by order dated 11th November, 2020 has disposed of the appeal as deemed to have been withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 (6) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 - it is factually not in dispute that the main applicant viz., M/s. Shakambhari Ispat Power Limited had applied under the scheme and the said application has been accepted and SVLDRS- 4 had been issued by the designated committee on 12th August, 2020. The reason for rejection of the application of the appellant cannot be sustained - Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The rejection of the appellant's application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 due to being a co-noticee when the main applicant had not yet applied and settled their case. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Rejection of Application under SVLDRS: The appellant's writ petition challenged the rejection of their application under the SVLDRS due to being a co-noticee when the main applicant had not yet applied and settled their case. The Court directed the appellant to submit a representation before the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs against the rejection. Issue 2: Deficit Court Fees: The department pointed out a defect in the appeal, requiring a deficit Court fee of Rs. 600 to be paid by the appellant. The Court instructed the appellant to rectify this defect during the day if not already paid. Issue 3: Factual Clarification: The appellant argued that the rejection of their application was based on incorrect information, as the main applicant company had indeed applied under the scheme and had their application accepted and settled. This fact was supported by the issuance of SVLDRS-4 by the designated committee on 12th August, 2020. Issue 4: Setting Aside Rejection: Considering the factual evidence presented, the Court found that the reason for rejecting the appellant's application could not be sustained. The appeal and the application were allowed, the order passed in the writ petition was set aside, and the rejection of the appellant's application under the scheme was also set aside. The matter was remanded to the designated committee for a fresh decision. Issue 5: Compliance and Timeframe: The designated committee was directed to comply with the decision expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from receiving the server copy of the order. No costs were awarded, and an urgent certified copy of the order was to be furnished to the parties upon completion of legal formalities. This judgment highlights the importance of factual accuracy in decision-making under the SVLDRS and emphasizes the need for proper representation and compliance with legal procedures in resolving disputes related to indirect taxes and customs.
|
