2021 (4) TMI 656 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Viswas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 - mistake in indicating the category as 'arrears' and sub-category 'appeal not filed or appeal having attained finality' whereas it should have indicated the category as 'litigation' - Section 127 of the Finance Act, 2019 read with Rule 6(2) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Schemes Rules, 2019 (SVLDRS Rules, 2019) - HELD THAT - The Court is of the view that the very fact that the Designated Committee granted registration number for the correctly filed SVLDRS-1 on 14th January, 2020 shows that the earlier objections were waived. Having processed the subsequently filed SVLDRS-1 and indicating those details in the SVLDRS-3 issued, there appears to be no justification for Opposite Parties to not accept NHSPL's calculation of tax amount due as ₹ 1,71,203.10 - a direction is issued to the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Designated Committee to accept the SVLDRS-1 filed by NHSPL by issuing the SLVDRS-3 and since the payment of the admitted tax has already been paid to issue discharge in Form SLVDRS-4 to NHSPL. As far as the second writ petition filed by NC is concerned, in the counter affidavit again there is no explanation why the Designated Committee issued SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-2A without issuing SVLDRS-3. It is also not in dispute that the pre- deposit amount indicated therein is ₹ 33,86,126/- whereas it should be ₹ 39,41,880/- as indicated by NC in SVLDRS-1. The only defence put forth is that this was accepted by NC. This is incorrect since NC did write to the authorities on 29th June 2020 which fact is not disputed by the Opposite Parties in the counter affidavit. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of Sabka Viswas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) by two petitioners.
2. Incorrect processing of SVLDRS forms by the Designated Committee.
3. Failure to consider corrected SVLDRS-1 forms filed by the petitioners.
4. Discrepancies in pre-deposit amounts in SVLDRS forms.
5. Lack of response from authorities to rectification requests by the petitioners.

Analysis:
1. Application of SVLDRS Scheme:
- Two petitioners, M/s. Nagen Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (NHSPL) and M/s. Nagen Caterer (NC), applied for tax relief under SVLDRS for service tax liabilities.

2. Incorrect Processing of SVLDRS Forms:
- Designated Committee issued incorrect SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-2A forms instead of SVLDRS-3, leading to confusion and delays in resolving tax issues for both petitioners.

3. Failure to Consider Corrected Forms:
- Despite petitioners correcting their SVLDRS-1 forms, the Designated Committee failed to consider the corrected information, causing further complications in the resolution process.

4. Discrepancies in Pre-Deposit Amounts:
- Discrepancies in pre-deposit amounts in SVLDRS forms caused confusion, with the correct amounts differing from what was initially indicated by the authorities.

5. Lack of Response to Rectification Requests:
- Authorities did not respond to the petitioners' requests for rectification and clarification on the SVLDRS forms, leading to the filing of writ petitions to address the unresolved issues.

The Court directed the Designated Committee to issue corrected SVLDRS-3 forms to both petitioners, reflecting the accurate tax due amounts and pre-deposit figures. The authorities were instructed to issue discharge certificates accordingly. The Court emphasized the importance of following the SVLDRS Rules and complying with the directions provided by the Central Excise and Customs Department. The writ petitions were disposed of with the above directions to ensure the resolution of tax disputes in accordance with the law and scheme provisions.