2020 (10) TMI 859 - HC - Service Tax

Rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection on the ground of inadvertent mistake as regards the penalty imposed being not correctly stated in the SVLDRS-1 form - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether an inadvertent mistake as regards the penalty imposed being not correctly stated in the SVLDRS-1 form, has been decided by this Court in its judgment ASSAM CRICKET ASSOCIATION VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS., THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL 2020 (6) TMI 38 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT where it was held that When we look into the Scheme 2019, we do not find any provision which provides that a person upon whom a penalty is imposed would not be entitled to the benefit given under the scheme. Infact on the contrary the provision of the Scheme 2019may be such that the benefit of exemption, may even be applicable to the amount of penalty imposed, in which event, the petitioner assesse may be more benefited and would be entitled to a greater exemption if the amount of penalty was mentioned rather than not mentioning the penalty. This writ petition also stands disposed of by requiring the petitioner to submit an application before the respondent authorities for correction to be made in the information provided in the Form SVLDRS-1 as regards the penalty imposed and upon such application being made, the respondent authorities would pass a reasoned speaking order thereon. The requirement of submitting application be made within a period of 15 days from obtaining the certified copy of the order and upon receiving of the application, the respondents shall pass an order on the same within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the application. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 rejected due to incorrect declaration of penalty in SVLDRS-1 form.

Analysis:
The petitioner was penalized &8377;86,74,199/- for a transaction, but while submitting the SVLDRS-1 form under the Scheme 2019, inadvertently declared the penalty amount as '0'. Consequently, their claim for benefits under the scheme was rejected. The key issue was whether this inadvertent mistake could be rectified to allow the petitioner to avail the benefits.

The High Court referred to a previous judgment where it was discussed that mistakes in such declarations could be of two types: deliberate mistakes to claim undue benefits or inadvertent mistakes due to oversight. In this case, the petitioner's mistake of declaring the penalty as '0' when it was actually &8377;11,48,82,644.00 was deemed inadvertent and not an attempt to claim an undue benefit. The Court noted that the Scheme 2019 did not explicitly disqualify individuals with imposed penalties from availing benefits, and in fact, the exemption under the scheme might even apply to the penalty amount, potentially resulting in greater benefits for the petitioner if the penalty was correctly stated.

Both parties agreed that the issue was covered by the previous judgment, leading to the disposal of the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to submit an application for correction of the penalty information in the SVLDRS-1 form within 15 days of obtaining the order's copy. The respondent authorities were instructed to pass a reasoned order on the application within two months of receiving it.

Additionally, it was noted that the petitioner had submitted a second SVLDRS-1 form with correct information, but it was rejected as not maintainable. However, this rejection did not prevent the petitioner from submitting an application for correction based on the first form. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should follow the process outlined in the order for correction of information.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to rectify the penalty information in the SVLDRS-1 form through a formal application, ensuring a fair review process by the respondent authorities.