9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 819 - HC - Service TaxRejection of declaration of the petitioner under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Appellant is a co-noticee - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that in the case of a main noticee M/S Sunshine Corporation, Special Civil Application No.23250 of 2019 was filed wherein this Court by an order dated 01.02.2022 in M/S. SUNSHINE CORPORATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2022 (2) TMI 1322 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , the petition has been allowed with certain directions. Since the petitioner is a co-noticee thereof the benefit of the judgment of this Court and the directions issued therein shall apply to the case of the petitioner. The orders dated 05.12.2019 and 17.01.2020 therefore are quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The rejection of the declaration of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Summary: Issue 1: Rejection of Declaration under SVLDRS Scheme The petitioner sought to set aside orders rejecting their declaration under the SVLDRS Scheme. The Court noted that in a related case, M/S Sunshine Corporation, a similar petition was allowed with specific directions. The Revenue respondent agreed to consider the petitioner's case in line with the directions given in the M/S Sunshine Corporation case. The Court observed that the respondents should accept the declaration under the category of "litigation" with the subcategory "SCN involving duty pending" for verification through the designated committee. A discharge certificate was issued to M/S Sunshine Corporation following the Court's directions. Issue 2: Grounds of Rejection The rejection of the petitioner's declaration was based on the grounds that the correct category should be "pending appeal" and not "show-cause-notice pending." The Court found that the matter was pending before the Commissioner due to an order of remand, and the respondents' stance did not align with the scheme's objectives. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ application, quashed the previous orders, and remitted the matter to the respondents for acceptance under the "litigation" category with the subcategory "SCN involving duty pending." Final Decision Since the petitioner was a co-noticee in the related case, the benefits of the Court's judgment and directions applied to their case. As a result, the orders rejecting the petitioner's declaration were set aside, and the petition was allowed, making the rule absolute.
|
