2020 (10) TMI 1135 - HC - Service Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - Rejection of application filed under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - rejection of application without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT - The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had conveyed to all the departmental heads that the scheme is a bold endeavour to unload the baggage relating to the legacy taxes, namely, central excise and service tax which have been subsumed under GST and to allow business to make a new beginning and to focus entirely on GST. It was emphasized that all officers and staff should partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success. It was highlighted that dispute resolution and amnesty are the two components of this scheme. The dispute resolution component is aimed at liquidating the legacy cases whereas the amnesty component gives an opportunity to those who have failed to correctly discharge their tax liability to pay the tax dues. On the one hand there is a letter of respondent No.3 to the petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 at ₹ 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30 th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of ₹ 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner s tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - there are no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. Though the scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand, the primary focus as succinctly put across by the Hon ble Finance Minister in her budget speech is to unload the baggage of pending litigations in respect of service tax and central excise from pre-GST regime so that the business can move on. This was also the view expressed by the Board in the circular dated 27th August, 2019 wherein all the officers and staff working under the Board were called upon to partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success which in turn will enable the administrative machinery to fully focus in the smooth implementation of GST. This is the broad picture which the officials must have in mind while considering an application (declaration) seeking amnesty under the scheme. The rejection of the application (declaration) of the Petitioner under the scheme communicated vide email dated 27th January, 2020 is not justified - petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Quantification of tax dues on or before 30th June, 2019.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-affording of an opportunity of hearing.
4. Discrepancy in declared tax dues for the period 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017.
5. Liberal interpretation of the scheme to achieve its objectives.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:
The petitioner sought quashing of the rejection of its application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019. The petitioner argued that it was eligible under the scheme as the tax dues were quantified before the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019. The court noted that the scheme aimed to liquidate past disputes of central excise and service tax and ensure disclosure of unpaid taxes. The petitioner’s eligibility hinged on whether the tax dues were quantified before the cut-off date.

2. Quantification of tax dues on or before 30th June, 2019:
The petitioner’s tax dues for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 were quantified at ?47,44,937.00 by the respondents’ letter dated 21st May, 2019. For the period 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017, the petitioner admitted a liability of ?10,74,011.00 in its letter dated 18th June, 2019. The court held that these amounts were quantified before the cut-off date, making the petitioner eligible under the scheme.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-affording of an opportunity of hearing:
The petitioner contended that the rejection of its application without a hearing violated principles of natural justice. The court agreed, stating that summary rejection without a hearing was contrary to the principles of natural justice and the scheme’s intent. The Designated Committee should have given the petitioner an opportunity to explain its case before rejecting the application.

4. Discrepancy in declared tax dues for the period 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017:
The petitioner declared ?12,09,732.00 for the period 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 in its application, differing from the admitted liability of ?10,74,011.00. The court noted that this discrepancy was due to a calculation error and could have been rectified if a hearing was granted. The court emphasized that the mistake did not materially affect the petitioner’s claim or the relief available under the scheme.

5. Liberal interpretation of the scheme to achieve its objectives:
The court highlighted the scheme’s objective to unload the baggage of pending litigations from the pre-GST regime and allow businesses to move forward. It cited the Hon’ble Finance Minister’s budget speech and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs’ circular, which called for a liberal interpretation of the scheme. The court stressed that the scheme’s success depended on a liberal approach embedded with principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court held that the rejection of the petitioner’s application under the scheme was unjustified. It set aside the rejection and directed the Designated Committee to reconsider the application after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The decision should be a speaking order, keeping in mind the court’s discussions. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →