2021 (9) TMI 908 - HC - Service Tax

Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - unilateral declaration of liability by the petitioner - quantification of demand not made - petitioner was orally informed that the applicability of scheme has been rejected as the Deputy Commissioner till date has not calculated any duty/tax liability - HELD THAT - Form SVLDRS-1 placed by the petitioner as Annexure P-3 itself contains the ground of its rejection as, ground of ineligibility with remarks, amount neither quantified nor communicated . It is, therefore, apparent that the application form annexed by the petitioner itself shows its rejection as also the reason for the rejection. The petitioner, therefore, cannot plead ignorance of the same. In the present case as well, there was a reference to a unilateral declaration of liability by the petitioner and not a quantification of demand by the Revenue in the letter/notice dated 20.11.2018 and therefore, the same does not make the petitioner eligible to avail the benefit of SVLDRS. There are no merit in the petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks direction to consider SVLDRS application and avoid coercive action.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 (SVLDRS) but received no response from the respondent. The respondent orally informed the rejection of the application due to non-quantification of tax liability. The petitioner claims a quantified demand exists, as evidenced by a notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

2. The court examined the petitioner's submissions and found no merit. The rejection of the application was based on the ground of ineligibility due to the amount not being quantified or communicated. The petitioner's reliance on a letter from 2018 was deemed unfounded as it represented a unilateral admission of liability, not a quantification by the department.

3. Citing the judgment in Karan Singh vs. Designated Committee, the court emphasized the importance of the department quantifying the tax amount for eligibility under SVLDRS. The definition of 'quantified' as a written communication of the duty payable under the tax enactment was crucial. The circulars clarified that admission of liability by the declarant does not suffice for eligibility.

4. The court analyzed whether a communication from the petitioner in June 2019 could be considered an admission of duty liability for SVLDRS eligibility. The court highlighted the necessity of quantification before the cut-off date of June 30, 2019, for cases under investigation or audit. Unilateral quantification by the petitioner was insufficient for eligibility, as the department must quantify the amount.

5. The court concluded that the petitioner's case did not meet the criteria for SVLDRS eligibility, as there was no quantification of the amount by the revenue department. The rejection of the application was upheld, and the petitioner was advised to pursue statutory remedies. The petition was dismissed, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.