2024 (8) TMI 402 - HC - Service Tax

Rejection of 9 declarations made under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection on the ground that the application cannot be filed on the basis of bank guarantee and the amount is not quantified - HELD THAT - Petitioners and Respondents agrees that since in case of Petitioner No. 1, the declaration made has been held to be valid on the ground that the amount was quantified before 30th June 2019, the basis of rejection would not survive since the main noticee-Petitioner No. 1 has been allowed the benefits of SVLDRS Scheme and consequently, Petitioner No. 3 being a co-noticee would also be entitled. Since Respondents are directed to accept the declaration made by Petitioner No. 1-Firm who is the main noticee, the declaration made by co-noticee-Petitioner No. 3 is consequently required to be accepted - Respondents are directed to accept the application made by Petitioner No. 3 and inform Petitioner No. 3 of any payment to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading the present order. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to rejection of declarations under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the rejection of 9 declarations made under the SVLDR Scheme. The rejection of the first declaration was based on the ground that the application cannot be filed on the basis of a bank guarantee and the amount was not quantified. The petitioners argued that this ground of rejection was erroneous as the issue of quantification on the basis of a bank guarantee did not apply to this declaration. The court found that the rejection was unjustified, and the respondents were directed to accept the declaration and communicate any required payment within a specified timeframe.

2. Six other declarations were also rejected on similar grounds related to the basis of rejection and quantification issues. The court held that the rejection was not valid as the issue was covered by a previous court decision. The respondents were directed to accept these declarations and communicate any payment required within a specified period, following which the petitioners were to make the payment and inform the respondents for the issuance of Form SVLDRS-4 certificates.

3. Another declaration made by one of the partners was rejected on the ground of duplicacy as the partner had initially filed with the wrong Commissionerate and later corrected the application. The court found the rejection ground invalid and directed the respondents to accept the declaration, communicate any required payment, and issue the necessary certificate upon payment.

4. The last declaration challenged was rejected due to the amount not being quantified before a specific date and an ongoing investigation. However, since the main noticee's declaration was accepted, the rejection of the co-noticee's declaration was deemed unjustified. The court directed the acceptance of the co-noticee's application, communication of any payment required, and issuance of the certificate upon payment.

5. The petition was allowed, and all declarations were directed to be accepted as per the court's detailed instructions. The petition was disposed of accordingly.