2022 (11) TMI 1094 - HC - Service Tax

SVLDRS - rectification / modification in the order to reject the application -Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme - rejection on the ground that Petitioner did not pay this amount of Rs.8,41,497/- within 30 days of issuance of rectified Form No.SVLDRS-3 or within the extended period of 30th June 2020 - HELD THAT - Revenue must be augmented and tax be collected without getting into other issues. - The Petitioner is willing to pay tax but, is facing the brunt of illegal rejection. Hence, not allowing Petitioner to avail the benefit under the scheme appears bad-in-law. The Petitioner having made payment, even if, there was a delay for which reasons are mentioned in the Petition, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 should have accepted the amount and issued Form No.SVLDRS-4. Section 128 the designated committee can modify its order only to correct an arithmetical error or clerical error which is apparent on the face of record. The remarks in the rectified Form No.SVLDRS-3, as mentioned above, by any stretch of imagination, can not be called an arithmetical or clerical error that was apparent on the face of record. On this ground also rectified Form No. SVLDRS-3 has to be set aside. In any event the details which have been referred to in the remarks column of rectified Form No. SVLDRS-3 were already available with Respondent Nos.3 and 4 before they issued original Form-3 where a positive statement was made that after consideration of relevant material, the designated committee has determined that a sum of Rs.52,58,583/- was payable by Petitioner - Respondents cannot go back and rectify original Form No.SVLDRS-3 issued on 28th November 2019. Petitioner is directed to issue Form No.SVLDRS-4 within two weeks of this order being uploaded accepting the amount of Rs.52,58,583 as paid in full and final settlement on 28th November 2019 pursuant to original Form No.SVLDRS-3. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS).
2. Validity of rectified Form No.SVLDRS-3 issued to the Petitioner.
3. Compliance with the provisions of Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019.

Issue 1: The court analyzed the SVLDR Scheme introduced by the Central Government for the liquidation of past disputes of Central Excise and Service Tax. The scheme aimed to ensure disclosure of unpaid taxes by eligible persons, minimize litigation, and provide benefits such as waiver of interest, fine, penalty, and immunity from prosecution to those making declarations and payments. The court highlighted the scheme's objective to resolve tax disputes amicably and enhance revenue collection without delving into other issues. The court emphasized the importance of following the scheme's provisions to achieve its intended purpose.

Issue 2: The court examined the issuance of the rectified Form No.SVLDRS-3 to the Petitioner by Respondent Nos.3 and 4. The court referred to Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019, which allows the designated committee to modify its order within thirty days to correct arithmetical or clerical errors apparent on the face of the record. The court noted that the rectified form was issued beyond the permissible period and did not rectify any such errors. The court concluded that the rectified form was invalid and set it aside, directing the issuance of Form No.SVLDRS-4 accepting the amount paid by the Petitioner.

Issue 3: The court assessed the compliance with the provisions of Section 128 and the actions of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 regarding the rectified form. The court observed that the remarks in the rectified form did not constitute arithmetical or clerical errors and were not apparent on the face of the record. Additionally, the court noted discrepancies in the pre-deposit amount declared by the Petitioner and the subsequent actions of the respondents. The court directed the issuance of Form No.SVLDRS-4, accepting the payment made by the Petitioner and allowing the Petitioner to seek a refund of the pre-deposit amount within a specified period.

In conclusion, the court held that the Petitioner should be allowed to avail the benefits under the SVLDR Scheme, emphasizing adherence to the scheme's provisions and ensuring a fair resolution of tax disputes. The court directed the issuance of the necessary forms and granted relief to the Petitioner while highlighting the importance of following the statutory framework for dispute resolution.