2021 (2) TMI 980 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - eligibility of the petitioners or maintainability of the declaration to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit on the ground that service tax dues of the petitioners for the related period was not quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - HELD THAT - In Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India 2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , this court faced with a similar issue referred to provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and to the circular dated 27th August, 2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, where it was held that 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. Thus, it is evident that all that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable including a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit. For eligibility under the scheme, the quantification need not be on completion of investigation by issuing show-cause notice or the amount that may be determined upon adjudication. Though petitioners had made a mistake in not disclosing this figure of ₹ 6,13,91,021.00 in the first declaration, the situation was rectified by filing the second declaration before rejection of the first declaration disclosing the aforesaid figure. We find that the second declaration was filed on 10.01.2020 whereas the first declaration was rejected on 12.02.2020 - the quantum of service tax liability of the petitioner was the amount of service tax liability of the petitioners quantified in terms of the scheme on admission of the petitioners prior to the cut off date of 30.06.2019 i.e. ₹ 6 crores approximately which roughly corresponds to the declared figure of ₹ 6,13,91,021.00 in the second declaration. In such circumstances, rejection of the second declaration of the petitioners on the ground of ineligibility is not justified. The matter remanded back to respondent No.4 to consider the declaration of the petitioners dated 10.01.2020 afresh as a valid declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry and audit and thereafter grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioners - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
2. Quantification of service tax liability before the cut-off date.
3. Rejection of declarations under the scheme.
4. Adherence to principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019:
The petitioners sought to avail the benefits of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, by filing declarations under the category of "investigation, enquiry or audit." The core issue was whether the petitioners were eligible under the scheme, given that their service tax liability was not quantified before the cut-off date of 30th June 2019.

2. Quantification of Service Tax Liability Before the Cut-off Date:
The petitioners had admitted a service tax liability of approximately ?6 crore in a statement dated 30.03.2018. However, discrepancies arose as the petitioners initially declared a lower liability of ?5,16,24,145 in their first declaration dated 27.11.2019. They later corrected this figure to ?6,13,91,021 in a second declaration dated 10.01.2020. The respondents rejected both declarations on the grounds that the service tax liability was not quantified before the cut-off date.

3. Rejection of Declarations Under the Scheme:
The respondents justified the rejection of the declarations by citing Section 124(1)(d) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, and the inconsistencies in the declared amounts. The court, however, referred to previous judgments, including Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India and M/s G.R.Palle Electricals Vs. Union of India, which clarified that "quantified" means a written communication of the amount of duty payable, including admissions made during enquiry, investigation, or audit.

4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized that the rejection of declarations without providing an opportunity for a hearing violates the principles of natural justice. It was noted that the petitioners should have been given a chance to explain the discrepancies in their declarations. The court referred to its decision in Thought Blurb, which held that summary rejection without a hearing is contrary to the scheme's objectives and the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order dated 08.06.2020 and remanded the matter back to respondent No.4 to reconsider the petitioners' second declaration dated 10.01.2020 as a valid declaration under the scheme. The respondent was directed to provide an opportunity for a hearing and pass a speaking order within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs. The interim application was disposed of accordingly.